"A Strange Case of Justice "
- Thread starter Warren Milberg
- Start date
- Status
Night speed?
So there's no speed limit after dark on CA lakes? There sure is in OH. what about the rest of the country?
So there's no speed limit after dark on CA lakes? There sure is in OH. what about the rest of the country?
I've noticed
that lately there are finally some other people around that are slowly realising that the judicial system works well for those employed by it. The rest of us, well. This case is glaringly obvious and a prime example.
that lately there are finally some other people around that are slowly realising that the judicial system works well for those employed by it. The rest of us, well. This case is glaringly obvious and a prime example.
This would be a case for ...
The Turko FIles if it were in San Diego Bay. I wish Mr Dinius well and I hope he is exonerated. And if so, I hope he brings a counter suit, and I also hope the owner sues for wrongful death at the hands of a peace officer.
This is so wrong in every way.
The Turko FIles if it were in San Diego Bay. I wish Mr Dinius well and I hope he is exonerated. And if so, I hope he brings a counter suit, and I also hope the owner sues for wrongful death at the hands of a peace officer.
This is so wrong in every way.
I read this today too
It gave me goose bumps. Reminds me of earlier this season sitting on our mooring in 50' visibility fog and listening to a cigarette boat wide open throttle transiting Fisher's Island Sound (CT/NY). Check out a chart of it. Just crazy.
Very sad story.
It gave me goose bumps. Reminds me of earlier this season sitting on our mooring in 50' visibility fog and listening to a cigarette boat wide open throttle transiting Fisher's Island Sound (CT/NY). Check out a chart of it. Just crazy.
Very sad story.
This whole thing sounds like one big cover up
Surely Dinius will be found not guilty. Unless they an find some way to discredit the experts who say the lights were burning. But who knows. If you have the sheriffs dept. and DA's office doing a cover up, nothing is for sure. And by the way Ross, John Grisham is one of my favorite authors.
Surely Dinius will be found not guilty. Unless they an find some way to discredit the experts who say the lights were burning. But who knows. If you have the sheriffs dept. and DA's office doing a cover up, nothing is for sure. And by the way Ross, John Grisham is one of my favorite authors.
responsibility
I'm no expert, but the key here is the reckless operation of the powerboat. Even if the sailboat was displaying the minimum required lighting (and some experts have determined the lights were on), it would be difficult for a powerboat, operating at a speed fast enough to have caused that damage, to see the sailboat in time to avoid collision, especially with lights on shore behind the sailboat. So the state of the lights of the sailboat should be a moot issue.
While the sailboat operator had been drinking and was possibly legally intoxicated (not clear in the BoatUS article), his intoxication wasn't the cause of the accident. There was no action or lack of action on his part that caused it to happen.
The issue of lighting does raise an interesting question, though. If you hand the helm over to someone else, do they instantly become legally responsible for all aspects of operating the vessel, such as lighting, signaling, number of life jackets, charge on the fire extinguishers, etc? The guy being charged is not the owner of the sailboat, he just happened to be at the helm at the time of the accident.
I'm no expert, but the key here is the reckless operation of the powerboat. Even if the sailboat was displaying the minimum required lighting (and some experts have determined the lights were on), it would be difficult for a powerboat, operating at a speed fast enough to have caused that damage, to see the sailboat in time to avoid collision, especially with lights on shore behind the sailboat. So the state of the lights of the sailboat should be a moot issue.
While the sailboat operator had been drinking and was possibly legally intoxicated (not clear in the BoatUS article), his intoxication wasn't the cause of the accident. There was no action or lack of action on his part that caused it to happen.
The issue of lighting does raise an interesting question, though. If you hand the helm over to someone else, do they instantly become legally responsible for all aspects of operating the vessel, such as lighting, signaling, number of life jackets, charge on the fire extinguishers, etc? The guy being charged is not the owner of the sailboat, he just happened to be at the helm at the time of the accident.
Latitude 38 on this story
Latitude 38 has covered this story extensively, and I must say they have not pulled any punches. There are so many aspects to this case that it's not funny. Among other things, the fact that the power boat was going so fast - clearly faster than what could be considered safe - and that there was only very light winds means that the sailboat could not have maneuvered out of the way of the power boat no matter what.
I'm not certain that Dinius will be found not guilty, though. I think that many jurors come into court with an unconscious attitude that "if he didn't do something wrong, he wouldn't be here." And anyway, even if Dinius is found not guilty, he loses. Imagine the stress he's under and, on top of that, his legal costs.
If people want to read more about this case, they can go to latitude38.com and then type "Dinius" into their Google search engine. All sorts of articles will come up.
Latitude 38 is urging people to contact Jerry Brown, the state Attorney General, to urge him to launch a public inquiry. I've done that, and I think it's a good idea. He can be e mailed at:
http://ag.ca.gov/contact/index.php
Or a real letter can be sent to:
Attorney General's Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: Public Inquiry Unit P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Latitude 38 has covered this story extensively, and I must say they have not pulled any punches. There are so many aspects to this case that it's not funny. Among other things, the fact that the power boat was going so fast - clearly faster than what could be considered safe - and that there was only very light winds means that the sailboat could not have maneuvered out of the way of the power boat no matter what.
I'm not certain that Dinius will be found not guilty, though. I think that many jurors come into court with an unconscious attitude that "if he didn't do something wrong, he wouldn't be here." And anyway, even if Dinius is found not guilty, he loses. Imagine the stress he's under and, on top of that, his legal costs.
If people want to read more about this case, they can go to latitude38.com and then type "Dinius" into their Google search engine. All sorts of articles will come up.
Latitude 38 is urging people to contact Jerry Brown, the state Attorney General, to urge him to launch a public inquiry. I've done that, and I think it's a good idea. He can be e mailed at:
http://ag.ca.gov/contact/index.php
Or a real letter can be sent to:
Attorney General's Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: Public Inquiry Unit P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
He needs a better lawyer!
The idea of conspiracy and cover up makes good TV, but not a good defense.
While I'm willing to admit the possiblity that it did happen.
How do you actually prove it in this case?
Since the prosecution is making such a big point of claiming the running lights were off......
Is not what they keep refering to as a "switch" a circuit breaker?
What was the condition of the stern light and wiring after the impact?
If the light or wiring were damaged, wouldn't it be a more convincing argument that as the damage happened, torn wires touched and tripped the breaker?
Facing the possiblity of how ever many years of not picking up the soap, I think that his lawyer should be trying a more convincing argument.
The idea of conspiracy and cover up makes good TV, but not a good defense.
While I'm willing to admit the possiblity that it did happen.
How do you actually prove it in this case?
Since the prosecution is making such a big point of claiming the running lights were off......
Is not what they keep refering to as a "switch" a circuit breaker?
What was the condition of the stern light and wiring after the impact?
If the light or wiring were damaged, wouldn't it be a more convincing argument that as the damage happened, torn wires touched and tripped the breaker?
Facing the possiblity of how ever many years of not picking up the soap, I think that his lawyer should be trying a more convincing argument.
This is a joke!
What about the rules of overtaking vessel? Don't they apply? I hope Bismark gets off scott free and they nail the powerboat guy. Where is common sense? This country is in trouble....
Dick
What about the rules of overtaking vessel? Don't they apply? I hope Bismark gets off scott free and they nail the powerboat guy. Where is common sense? This country is in trouble....
Dick
Reply to "needs a better lawyer"
First of all, there is conflicting testimony over whether the boat owner had his running lights on. But even if he didn't, it wouldn't have made much difference since everybody seems to agree that as close to land as they were it would have been difficult or impossible to distinguish the boat lights from lights on shore. Second, I forget the actual wording, but there's something in the rules of the road about operating a boat at a speed that is safe given the existing conditions. The motorboat was clearly going way over this speed. Third, it's interesting that the operator of the motor boat was not tested for alcohol immediately after the accident.
Dinius could have the best lawyer in the world, but it's clear that the fix is in.
First of all, there is conflicting testimony over whether the boat owner had his running lights on. But even if he didn't, it wouldn't have made much difference since everybody seems to agree that as close to land as they were it would have been difficult or impossible to distinguish the boat lights from lights on shore. Second, I forget the actual wording, but there's something in the rules of the road about operating a boat at a speed that is safe given the existing conditions. The motorboat was clearly going way over this speed. Third, it's interesting that the operator of the motor boat was not tested for alcohol immediately after the accident.
Dinius could have the best lawyer in the world, but it's clear that the fix is in.
John, I agree
Yes, I certainly agree with all you say.
The powerboater was clearly at fault.
Unfortunately, like many things in this world today it has ceased to be about what's right. But who to blame. And this poor guy is caught in the middle.
It seems to me from what I've seen thus far that Dinius can claim until he's blue in the face that the running lights were on (which seems to be the prosecution's hinging point)unitl he's blue in the face. That picture of the power panel with the cabin lights on and the running light breaker off is damning as evidence.
He can argue the many points in which the powerboater was truely in violation. But, he's dealing with a court who for the most part is probably uninformed about anything maritime related.
And the powerboater is part of that court system.
All I'm saying is to base your defense on "someone turned that switch off while the boat was unwatched" is a fools game. You can't prove it. Better to come with something that can be conclusively shown to be plausible.
It's terrible that the court system has become a "game".
One of my former employers spent four years in court. We had installed a two-way radio in a car. Two weeks later it burned to the ground. After suits, appeals, counter suits, the car manufacturer finally said "That model did that."
What I am unclear about is, was Dinius "in command" of the vessel, or just happened to be steering at the time?
Yes, I certainly agree with all you say.
The powerboater was clearly at fault.
Unfortunately, like many things in this world today it has ceased to be about what's right. But who to blame. And this poor guy is caught in the middle.
It seems to me from what I've seen thus far that Dinius can claim until he's blue in the face that the running lights were on (which seems to be the prosecution's hinging point)unitl he's blue in the face. That picture of the power panel with the cabin lights on and the running light breaker off is damning as evidence.
He can argue the many points in which the powerboater was truely in violation. But, he's dealing with a court who for the most part is probably uninformed about anything maritime related.
And the powerboater is part of that court system.
All I'm saying is to base your defense on "someone turned that switch off while the boat was unwatched" is a fools game. You can't prove it. Better to come with something that can be conclusively shown to be plausible.
It's terrible that the court system has become a "game".
One of my former employers spent four years in court. We had installed a two-way radio in a car. Two weeks later it burned to the ground. After suits, appeals, counter suits, the car manufacturer finally said "That model did that."
What I am unclear about is, was Dinius "in command" of the vessel, or just happened to be steering at the time?
Bob...
Good point on the switch, however, it too has flaws. There are enough witnesses that state the running lights, AND, cabin lights were on. How the switch got to the "off" position can only be assumed. I believe assumptions are not admissible and could be considered "here-say", I could be wrong.
There could be many reasons why the switch was "off". One was pointed out earlier that a short circuit could have caused the switch to trip. Another would be simply, the coach roof was crushed. Anything could have caused that switch to fall. I don't think any jury would look at the photo and conclude without a doubt that the running lights were not on. As a member of the jury (if I were), I would go by witness accounts rather than after the fact photos.
My 2¢ worth.
I really hope justice is blind in this case, but it looks like she is being manipulated but the system, as some have pointed out very clearly.
What ever happened to the other case where a boater was killed when run over by a high speed motor boat in board daylight? Remember that thread?
Good point on the switch, however, it too has flaws. There are enough witnesses that state the running lights, AND, cabin lights were on. How the switch got to the "off" position can only be assumed. I believe assumptions are not admissible and could be considered "here-say", I could be wrong.
There could be many reasons why the switch was "off". One was pointed out earlier that a short circuit could have caused the switch to trip. Another would be simply, the coach roof was crushed. Anything could have caused that switch to fall. I don't think any jury would look at the photo and conclude without a doubt that the running lights were not on. As a member of the jury (if I were), I would go by witness accounts rather than after the fact photos.
My 2¢ worth.
I really hope justice is blind in this case, but it looks like she is being manipulated but the system, as some have pointed out very clearly.
What ever happened to the other case where a boater was killed when run over by a high speed motor boat in board daylight? Remember that thread?
Misdemeaner Homicide
Regarding David Walsh's sailboat that was run over by a powerboat in buzzards bay, the operator of the power boat was charged yesterday, the MA penalty if convicted being 30days-30months with a $3000 fine.
Regarding David Walsh's sailboat that was run over by a powerboat in buzzards bay, the operator of the power boat was charged yesterday, the MA penalty if convicted being 30days-30months with a $3000 fine.
It is unbelievable to me...
I just don't get the logic. The prosecution's case rests on the fact that the running lights were not on and therefore the boat was apparently invisible. However, if the photo of the panel proves that they were off it equally proves that the cabin lights were on. If they were on and the main hatch slider was forward, which is likely given the abject lack of wind that night (no reason to have it closed). Then the light in the companionway should have provided adequate warning to the power boater, even if that light wasn't further illuminating the sail.
Another pivotal point is that they are blaming the sailboat crew for not keeping an adequate watch. Given the lack of speed limit on that large inland lake it is probably an unfortunate truth that they got used to idiots buzzing around them. Add a little alcohol (Dinius was 0.12 and the Captain was 0.18 and CA had dropped the limit to 0.08. Two standard drinks = BAC of 0.05% and a beer is 1.4 standard drinks in the US per wikipedia), some good company and perhaps not having a signaling device within reach and a disaster occurred.
The later is a point I plan to take home. I always have a horn, whistle and a bell on board...but to date haven't bothered to keep something within reach. I plan to change that and to keep a flashlight to hand at night to illuminate the sail. It is unlikely that a horn would have helped in this case...it was reported that the hot shot deputy had recently disconnected his mufflers to make his go fast boat sound cooler. The most damning thing to me is the disappearance of the deputy's blood alcohol sample. It was labeled as tested 24 hours later. The sheriff's office claims the label was a lab error and it was tested at 11:30pm that night. However, witnesses place the deputy as still on the scene at 12:30am, so how did the lab have a sample yet?
This is a sad story that will only get sadder. Even if poor Dinius is cleared he is a newlywed and broke (over $160,000 spent to date). The worse thing that will happen to the Deputy is that he gets run out of town...then shows up in Florida like so many bad cops do. Not that I am saying he WAS a bad cop...but he is one now in my book. "Protect and Serve" right?
I just don't get the logic. The prosecution's case rests on the fact that the running lights were not on and therefore the boat was apparently invisible. However, if the photo of the panel proves that they were off it equally proves that the cabin lights were on. If they were on and the main hatch slider was forward, which is likely given the abject lack of wind that night (no reason to have it closed). Then the light in the companionway should have provided adequate warning to the power boater, even if that light wasn't further illuminating the sail.
Another pivotal point is that they are blaming the sailboat crew for not keeping an adequate watch. Given the lack of speed limit on that large inland lake it is probably an unfortunate truth that they got used to idiots buzzing around them. Add a little alcohol (Dinius was 0.12 and the Captain was 0.18 and CA had dropped the limit to 0.08. Two standard drinks = BAC of 0.05% and a beer is 1.4 standard drinks in the US per wikipedia), some good company and perhaps not having a signaling device within reach and a disaster occurred.
The later is a point I plan to take home. I always have a horn, whistle and a bell on board...but to date haven't bothered to keep something within reach. I plan to change that and to keep a flashlight to hand at night to illuminate the sail. It is unlikely that a horn would have helped in this case...it was reported that the hot shot deputy had recently disconnected his mufflers to make his go fast boat sound cooler. The most damning thing to me is the disappearance of the deputy's blood alcohol sample. It was labeled as tested 24 hours later. The sheriff's office claims the label was a lab error and it was tested at 11:30pm that night. However, witnesses place the deputy as still on the scene at 12:30am, so how did the lab have a sample yet?
This is a sad story that will only get sadder. Even if poor Dinius is cleared he is a newlywed and broke (over $160,000 spent to date). The worse thing that will happen to the Deputy is that he gets run out of town...then shows up in Florida like so many bad cops do. Not that I am saying he WAS a bad cop...but he is one now in my book. "Protect and Serve" right?
- Status