The fact remains that a charge of BUI/BWI will (and should, IMO) stick given the "evidence " I've read. I believe that to be a correct judgment. but I also believe that there should be NO conviction for anything even approaching manslaughter for Dinius for the same reason. The question I would like to see addressed is whether or not, with the current charge being pursued, Dinius can be convicted of anything at all if he's not convicted with regard to the death. Isn't the BUI/BWI tied to the charge over the death?
It is up to a jury now
- Thread starter paulj
- Start date
- Status
To all of you who disagree with me
First let me say that I an enjoying this conversation where everyone has be able to present their point of view on this subject.
To Phil at SBO thank you for keeping it in the original forum and letting it grow as it has. I think it has gotten allot of people to think about boating and drinking as well as the legal ramifications of it.
I know that I hold a minority point of view here and to be quite honest I hope to be able to convert more people to think about this as I do. I still believe that Purdock is overwhelming responsible for the death and the accident, that is pretty much a given that all agree on However I would like for others to see that Weber and Dinius have some responsibility here also. I still contend that they should have never left that dock in their diminished capacity from the alcohol. It changed how they perceived and reacted to the situation that night.
Looking at pictures of the sailboat this was not a run down from behind accident. The powerboat hit the sailboat in the stern quarter starboard side, it launched over the cockpit and cabin top taking out the mast. At the power boats speed it would have taken less then two seconds of reaction time and maneuvering time to have avoid the sailboat. Had the powerboat noticed the sailboat he could have avoided it with a simple half turn of the wheel literally one seconds before impact. The power could have passed to the stern of the sailboat in what appears to be 10 feet or less or could have changes the angle of impact to lessen the blow and damage possible averting any lose of life. Remember the power boat was doing 45 mph or 66 feet per second.That in no way puts the responsibility on the sailboat except they did not have a watch and as required by maritime law they did not attempt to avoid the accident. I contend had the not been drunk they MAY HAVE noticed and MAY HAVE been able to make their presence know. I will give you maybe not but no will will every know for sure. The alcohol diminished their capacity to be aware of their surrounding and to react to them. This in no way takes the overwhelming responsibility away from Purdock.
I got to ask if it had been your daughter or loved who was lost one would you not put some of the responsibility on the sailboat crew and ask what the hell where they thinking when they left the dock drunk ????
First let me say that I an enjoying this conversation where everyone has be able to present their point of view on this subject.
To Phil at SBO thank you for keeping it in the original forum and letting it grow as it has. I think it has gotten allot of people to think about boating and drinking as well as the legal ramifications of it.
I know that I hold a minority point of view here and to be quite honest I hope to be able to convert more people to think about this as I do. I still believe that Purdock is overwhelming responsible for the death and the accident, that is pretty much a given that all agree on However I would like for others to see that Weber and Dinius have some responsibility here also. I still contend that they should have never left that dock in their diminished capacity from the alcohol. It changed how they perceived and reacted to the situation that night.
Looking at pictures of the sailboat this was not a run down from behind accident. The powerboat hit the sailboat in the stern quarter starboard side, it launched over the cockpit and cabin top taking out the mast. At the power boats speed it would have taken less then two seconds of reaction time and maneuvering time to have avoid the sailboat. Had the powerboat noticed the sailboat he could have avoided it with a simple half turn of the wheel literally one seconds before impact. The power could have passed to the stern of the sailboat in what appears to be 10 feet or less or could have changes the angle of impact to lessen the blow and damage possible averting any lose of life. Remember the power boat was doing 45 mph or 66 feet per second.That in no way puts the responsibility on the sailboat except they did not have a watch and as required by maritime law they did not attempt to avoid the accident. I contend had the not been drunk they MAY HAVE noticed and MAY HAVE been able to make their presence know. I will give you maybe not but no will will every know for sure. The alcohol diminished their capacity to be aware of their surrounding and to react to them. This in no way takes the overwhelming responsibility away from Purdock.
I got to ask if it had been your daughter or loved who was lost one would you not put some of the responsibility on the sailboat crew and ask what the hell where they thinking when they left the dock drunk ????
The fact that the boat was becalmed would lead me to think that they could not have maneuvered the boat. The other point is that even completely sober, people often observe for a few seconds before deciding to do something. Those few seconds would make it too late. But the main point is that Petersea is overlooking the big picture: What effect would a "guilty" verdict tend to have? It would tend to give the real culprit the "get out of jail free" card that Petersea objects to. He talks about boating under the influence - from impartial witnesses it seems that it Purdock was the one most guilty of that, never mind all the other violations and crimes he apparantly is guilty of and for which the authorities are maneuvering to relieve him from paying for in any way.
So the real question is: What message does a "guilty" verdict for Dinius send? It sends the message that if you are well connected you can do whatever you please on the water.
So the real question is: What message does a "guilty" verdict for Dinius send? It sends the message that if you are well connected you can do whatever you please on the water.
My $.02. If the sailboat had the proper lights on, and there were calm conditions, the only thing they could have done was keep a watch and warn the oncoming powerboat with a spot or flashlight. Unfortunately, if convicted on BUI, they will be very vulnerable to civil suit(s).
Sorry guys, I was more referring to the FELONY BUI/ causing harm/injury. My question is whether the Jury can consider a lesser charge separating BUI from damages or are they stuck with all or none? If it's all or none, then not guilty! If it smells like s*@t you must acquit!
lessons learned
Not second guessing what the occupants of the sailboat could have done whether drunk or sober but here is what I have learned from this discussion.
1. Never operate a boat while over the legal limit. I never have and never will although I plead guilty (to this forum) to having done so with a car on more than one occassion. That was decades ago and I was lucky to never have had an accident in that condition.
2. If you are out after dark have a huge lantern in the cockpit. The kind that can blind someone from 300 yards away. If there is anyone speeding around nearby alternate between lighting up your sails and shining it directly at the speeding boat. I already have two such lanterns on board, one of which is battery powered and one plugs directly in to the 12v outlet.
Sadly, this type of collision is not rare. It happened just a few weeks ago in Seattle when a speeding powerboat ran over a ski boat that was dead in the water. The occupants of the skiboat survived because the one that was in the water hanging on to the swim step dove under the water just before impact and the passenger in the cockpit dove to the floor just before the speedboat went over the top of them. The speedboat driver came back around to ask if they were alright and then sped off into the night leaving the scene of the accident. Last I heard they still have not found the hit and run driver. Passengers on the ski boat say that he sounded drunk when he spoke to them after the impact.
Not second guessing what the occupants of the sailboat could have done whether drunk or sober but here is what I have learned from this discussion.
1. Never operate a boat while over the legal limit. I never have and never will although I plead guilty (to this forum) to having done so with a car on more than one occassion. That was decades ago and I was lucky to never have had an accident in that condition.
2. If you are out after dark have a huge lantern in the cockpit. The kind that can blind someone from 300 yards away. If there is anyone speeding around nearby alternate between lighting up your sails and shining it directly at the speeding boat. I already have two such lanterns on board, one of which is battery powered and one plugs directly in to the 12v outlet.
Sadly, this type of collision is not rare. It happened just a few weeks ago in Seattle when a speeding powerboat ran over a ski boat that was dead in the water. The occupants of the skiboat survived because the one that was in the water hanging on to the swim step dove under the water just before impact and the passenger in the cockpit dove to the floor just before the speedboat went over the top of them. The speedboat driver came back around to ask if they were alright and then sped off into the night leaving the scene of the accident. Last I heard they still have not found the hit and run driver. Passengers on the ski boat say that he sounded drunk when he spoke to them after the impact.
Local Newspaper headline: "Safe Lake Today"
.... because purdock was testifying in court!
(Aug 11)
.... because purdock was testifying in court!
(Aug 11)
"What effect would a "guilty" verdict tend to have? It would tend to give the real culprit the "get out of jail free" card that Petersea objects to"
John from Alameda,
I will differ on this with you, As far as the "big picture" is concerned what you are not seeing is that Purdock has already beaten any possible procustion for BUI from this accident.This is due to the Clear Lake Sheriff department and how they mishandled the accident scene and never tested Purdock's blood level that night. The district attorney will never prosecute with out blood alcohol levels. This goes back to the sheriff's department but purdock did not commit a crime by not having a blood level sample taken the sheriff department was negligent in their duties. I will agree that that Purdock was drinking. As much as you would like (and myself also) Purdock will not be charged with BUI. There just in no evidence to convict him of that charge.
As far a a guilty verdict for Dunius it would simply show the jury thought the BUI was a proven offense.
This will most likely or at least I hope wind up in civil court with Purdock being charged with negligent homicide and a "boat load" of other charges. As far as criminally there is not much luck of that unless the State Of California reviews the local D.A. handling and decides it wants to prosecute but again I will guarantee at this point there will be no charge of BUI due to lack of evidence. I have to believe that a jury would find Purdock civilly guilty that night. I think most people would be able to distinguish between Dunise being BUI and Purdock's irresponsible behavior to realize Purdocks guilt when the facts are presented. Everyone here agrees Purdock is wrong but due to the corrupt legal system in Clear Lake he will not be criminally charged.
I have to hope that the local people of Clear Lake clean house or demand that the state fix what is wrong in the Clear Lake Sheriff's department. Apparently there is some progress in that direction as it is my understanding they have hired a replacement for Purdock.
John your point that Purdock is getting off easy is valid but that in no way invalidates Denius actions. We can re hash the events of the accident over but that won't change anything in either your mind or mine. Denius and Weber both had no right to be operating a boat that night nor did Purdock.
You seam unwilling to separate Denius being charged with BUI because Purdock has not been charged. That is what I don't get. " Two wrongs don't make a right" is the expression I believe.
John from Alameda,
I will differ on this with you, As far as the "big picture" is concerned what you are not seeing is that Purdock has already beaten any possible procustion for BUI from this accident.This is due to the Clear Lake Sheriff department and how they mishandled the accident scene and never tested Purdock's blood level that night. The district attorney will never prosecute with out blood alcohol levels. This goes back to the sheriff's department but purdock did not commit a crime by not having a blood level sample taken the sheriff department was negligent in their duties. I will agree that that Purdock was drinking. As much as you would like (and myself also) Purdock will not be charged with BUI. There just in no evidence to convict him of that charge.
As far a a guilty verdict for Dunius it would simply show the jury thought the BUI was a proven offense.
This will most likely or at least I hope wind up in civil court with Purdock being charged with negligent homicide and a "boat load" of other charges. As far as criminally there is not much luck of that unless the State Of California reviews the local D.A. handling and decides it wants to prosecute but again I will guarantee at this point there will be no charge of BUI due to lack of evidence. I have to believe that a jury would find Purdock civilly guilty that night. I think most people would be able to distinguish between Dunise being BUI and Purdock's irresponsible behavior to realize Purdocks guilt when the facts are presented. Everyone here agrees Purdock is wrong but due to the corrupt legal system in Clear Lake he will not be criminally charged.
I have to hope that the local people of Clear Lake clean house or demand that the state fix what is wrong in the Clear Lake Sheriff's department. Apparently there is some progress in that direction as it is my understanding they have hired a replacement for Purdock.
John your point that Purdock is getting off easy is valid but that in no way invalidates Denius actions. We can re hash the events of the accident over but that won't change anything in either your mind or mine. Denius and Weber both had no right to be operating a boat that night nor did Purdock.
You seam unwilling to separate Denius being charged with BUI because Purdock has not been charged. That is what I don't get. " Two wrongs don't make a right" is the expression I believe.
Ron- about this changing of testimony- Purdock has said at various times that he was going 40, 40-45, or 60 mphm (when the speedometer needle was straight up). On the stand he said he was only going 30-35 mph, after consulting wih his lawyers.... Perhaps if someone asks him tomorrow, he will say he was sitting still and the sailboat backed under him. This farce just blows my mind. -Paul
changes in statements
Paul,
Every "expert" in this case has used a different speed. His was an estimate based on tach readings, a process with wide margin for error. I am not excusing his actions, he should as I've said be charged with wreckless operation of a vessel at least. But just like somebody else posted he wasn't tested for BAC, when infact the court record shows that he was taken to the hospital by the sheriff depart. received 6 stiches in his head and had his blood drawn. The Lake County Record Bee has done a great job of reporting the trial on a day to day basis, check it out. It keeps the facts as presented in court straight.
Paul,
Every "expert" in this case has used a different speed. His was an estimate based on tach readings, a process with wide margin for error. I am not excusing his actions, he should as I've said be charged with wreckless operation of a vessel at least. But just like somebody else posted he wasn't tested for BAC, when infact the court record shows that he was taken to the hospital by the sheriff depart. received 6 stiches in his head and had his blood drawn. The Lake County Record Bee has done a great job of reporting the trial on a day to day basis, check it out. It keeps the facts as presented in court straight.
Of course Purdock will not be prosecuted, although if the evidence presented so far is correct he still seems guilty of manslaughter, even if he never touched a drop of alcohol. But what you're missing, Petersea, is the possibility of lawsuits after this farce called a trial is over. If Dinius is found guilty, the implication will be that he was the one responsible, thus helping to let Purdock off the hook in any future lawsuits.
Best trial web links
There are three links I like the best about this trial and for coverage:
1) The one referenced above by Dan Noyes, reporter, and,
2) "Clear Lake Case - Support Bismarck Dinius and Expose Russell Perdock". Just copy and paste this title in google search and it should be near the top. This one is good for views of those who believe little perdock should be hung. Okay, maybe that's a little strong, but you get the idea.
3) Lake County News dot com has really complete articles.
There are several web pages for #1 but if you click on "Main" that will send you to the current page. Dan has been filing really complete reports on a daily basis.
There are three links I like the best about this trial and for coverage:
1) The one referenced above by Dan Noyes, reporter, and,
2) "Clear Lake Case - Support Bismarck Dinius and Expose Russell Perdock". Just copy and paste this title in google search and it should be near the top. This one is good for views of those who believe little perdock should be hung. Okay, maybe that's a little strong, but you get the idea.
3) Lake County News dot com has really complete articles.
There are several web pages for #1 but if you click on "Main" that will send you to the current page. Dan has been filing really complete reports on a daily basis.
"If Dinius is found guilty, the implication will be that he was the one responsible, thus helping to let Purdock off the hook in any future lawsuits."
John,
I guess I just have faith that a reasonable person would be able to understand that if Dinius is convicted of BUI it in no way takes the responsibility off Purdock or his part in the accident. I think the case of O.J. Simpson with regards to criminal and civil penalties proves my point. Unfortunately due to Clear Lake's sheriff's department, that completely failed on this case from the initial investigation. (amazing that the breathalyzers were not calibrated as required and that they were able to get a valid blood test from Diuius but not from Purdock as well as not taking statements from volunteer witness). Purdock will never be charged with BUI (at least not in this case). You and I both agree that Purdock is most likely guilty of manslaughter. I can only hope (that due to press coverage and public outrage )that Purdock is eventually held accountable for his part in the accident.
John,
I guess I just have faith that a reasonable person would be able to understand that if Dinius is convicted of BUI it in no way takes the responsibility off Purdock or his part in the accident. I think the case of O.J. Simpson with regards to criminal and civil penalties proves my point. Unfortunately due to Clear Lake's sheriff's department, that completely failed on this case from the initial investigation. (amazing that the breathalyzers were not calibrated as required and that they were able to get a valid blood test from Diuius but not from Purdock as well as not taking statements from volunteer witness). Purdock will never be charged with BUI (at least not in this case). You and I both agree that Purdock is most likely guilty of manslaughter. I can only hope (that due to press coverage and public outrage )that Purdock is eventually held accountable for his part in the accident.
GEEEEZE, petersea, you are REALLY hung up about whether or not the temporary skipper had a beer or not. You seem to be sooo riveted on this point that would not have affected the outcome of events regardless if he were falling down drunk or stone sober.
Most everyone else sees this as a gross miscarriage of justice case and an attempt to use ones office to protect an associated office from any prosecution. That's the BIG picture here!
Most everyone else sees this as a gross miscarriage of justice case and an attempt to use ones office to protect an associated office from any prosecution. That's the BIG picture here!
I used to think so, too, Alan, but
I think Pete "might, just might" be beginning to see the light.
I've referred Pete back to some of my earlier posts on this subject, including the one way back on maybe page 4 about the lack of maneuverability of the sailboat, the "Sitting Duck" point of view, and my own experiences on Clear lake in the early to mid 80s.
Pete, stay with us, please, 'cuz I just can't wait to hear the discussions when the verdicts come down from the jury.
I think Pete "might, just might" be beginning to see the light.
I've referred Pete back to some of my earlier posts on this subject, including the one way back on maybe page 4 about the lack of maneuverability of the sailboat, the "Sitting Duck" point of view, and my own experiences on Clear lake in the early to mid 80s.
Pete, stay with us, please, 'cuz I just can't wait to hear the discussions when the verdicts come down from the jury.
I do see the miscarriage of justice.
I have always contended that Purdock has responsibility here. I just don't see how you or anyone else can not think that the diminished capacity the operator and crew had no connection at all. I don't understand how you can be "sooo" confident it was not a factor. I will not argue the point anymore.
I have always contended that Purdock has responsibility here. I just don't see how you or anyone else can not think that the diminished capacity the operator and crew had no connection at all. I don't understand how you can be "sooo" confident it was not a factor. I will not argue the point anymore.
- Status