It is up to a jury now

[John]

Let's be clear

Remember that "take action" to avoid collision is more than just changing course. It could be starting the motor, it could be lighting the sails, or sounding the horn. Or even abandoning the vessel (never a prefered choice). The sad fact is we will never know if any of these could have prevented the accident. Having sailed on that lake out of Lakeport for 20+ years, at night everybody onboard was an alert and sober lookout. Why? Because I don't believe in turning my destiny over to somebody else in a over powered speedboat.

First of all, Bismark Dinius was only at the helm because the owner had gone down below for a few seconds. Second, they had just recently changed the legal alcohol content limits. Under the old law, he would have been legal. This means that he was just barely over the limit.

Then there are the other issues: With a boat going some 40-50 mph., how much time would a 100% sober person need to react? I suspect far more time than he would have had, given Purdock's speed. Shine a light on his sail? How long would that have taken, especially if there wasn't a flashlight immediately at hand? As for whether there was a question of his having had his lights on - the only one who claimed he didn't was Purdock, who obviously has a vested interest in this. And in any case, it seems that the lights would have been indistinguishable from the background shore lights.

Whether Dinius was roaring drunk or sober as a mummy is really irrelevant. The main point is this: It is clear that the DA is covering up for his buddies in the Sheriff's depatment. That there is a cover up was clear from the moment that the investigating officer was ordered not to test Purdock for alcohol at the time of the wreck. And this cover up goes all the way up to the state Attorney General's office, which has refused to investigate despite requests that they do so. No matter what the guilt or innocence of Dinius, Purdock clearly deserves a large portion of the blame, yet he's getting off scot free.

 

[Alan]

pete,

Whether being rear end at that point or 7 or even 20 feet further forward would do nothing to minimize the severity of the impact.
According to eye witnesses on shore and at the club the sailboat did in fact have its running lights on. The DA refutes this because he never interviewed them.
A drunk speed boat jokey who disregards all safety and was unaware of his approach to the sailboat with both running lights and cabin lights on would hardly be looking at an illuminated sail from a flashlight.

I am no advocate for DUI and I think that penalties for DUI and DWI are not nearly severe enough, but in this case the fact that the sailboat skipper was intoxicated in no way contributed to the results.

 

[Ron20324]

A local event a couple decades ago, a state trooper was in an accident. Though he had been drinking, he confessed that the accident was caused by "activity" with his ladyfriend. He was ticketed for not paying attention, and not DWI/DUI. Others should get away so easily.

 

[Dave D]

First of all, Bismark Dinius was only at the helm because the owner had gone down below for a few seconds. Second, they had just recently changed the legal alcohol content limits. Under the old law, he would have been legal. This means that he was just barely over the limit.

That's laughable! "really occifer, the law only shanged las week. pleez don gibme a IUD." or "I wasn't speeding! I was doing 63 and it's a 55 mph zone!"

I don't disagree with your stance on the culpability of the power boater, nor that of conspiracy, but those strike me as extremely asinine assertions.

 

[Ross]

Any action that could have ben taken by the sailboat would only have increased the size of the target. This is a clear case of the sailboat being the stand-on vessel. If he turns left or right the odds that the overtaking boat will also turn are such that holding his course and speed is the prudent action for the sailboat. Even if he had been motoring it would not change the dynamic. I sail faster than I motor and showing a white light astern is all anyone can do.

 

[Stu Jackson]

For any of those of you who are even considering casting any blame on the sailboat, for ANY reason, consider this:

You're in a sailboat, no wind, at night, having had a relaxing day sailing and slowly working your way back home; how quickly could YOU (drinking ONLY water, to say nothing of ANYthing else) have reacted to a zooming 40- to 55 mph speedboat??? As I recall, the sailboat didn't have an engine on, right? No engine with no wind = maneuverability, right? Does "sitting duck" come to mind?

Hell, I couldn't get outta the way in broad daylight after my first cuppa coffe. Nor could you!

Ya need to get real and realize this is just a big time coverup by the corrupt Lake County DA.

I had a friend who ran for Mayor of Lakeport many years ago. Even in the early 80's they had a VERY stinking reputation. Hasn't changed much, oh yeah, it's gotten worse.

I hope none of the "kind of you" who think the sailboat has ANY responsibility in this manner are on that jury.

 

[tommays]

This is and every weekend issue in Northport when the big boats go by us at 30 knots and 30 feet ,In the best case i could ZIG or ZAG 10 feet in the final 8 seconds

 

[RAD]

well said Stu

 

[Ross]

The jury has had this case since Friday. I am going to predict a hung jury at worst and an acquittal at best.

 

[Ross]

It seems that this case has not yet gone to the jury and the defence has not yet rested. http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2009/08/index.html

 

[RAD]

This is a real interesting brief
http://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/dinius-bench-brief.pdf

Turns out when the defense started asking questions about navigation law the prosecutor objected to that line of questioning and the judge went along with the prosecutor

 

[Stu Jackson]

well said Stu

Thanks, rad, and also to tommays, who makes another VERY important point. Thanks Tom.

Guys & gals, ya gotta think outside the R&R (not relax and refit and recreation stuff) here, and understand what si truly going on. A coverup of the highest order or a plain jerk, the motorboat operator, who, OH MY GOSH, just happens to a LEO.

How COINCIDENTAL!

 

[John]

judges

This is a real interesting brief
http://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/dinius-bench-brief.pdf

Turns out when the defense started asking questions about navigation law the prosecutor objected to that line of questioning and the judge went along with the prosecutor

People would be amazed to learn how much the judges can influence the outcome of a case. So the fix is in.

 

[petersea]

Tim,

I'm not sure what I would have done to actively avoid the collusion but I do know this I would have been sober. Drinking and operating a vehicle or vessel is just wrong. .... there may not have been anything that could have been done but without being there first hand we will never real know the answer to that. I have to believe that the operators response time and awareness times were diminished by the alcohol. As I read the story it was almost three hours after the initial impact before the blood alcohol level was taken so it had time to lower and the operator was still legal over the limit. I can't in all good conscience discount the alcohol as being a factor (on both parties) Part of the reason the prosecutor reduced the charges to BUI were cause he can win that charge but not a manslaughter charge. This goes back to access fault for the accident and I still contend the sailboat operator has a very small percentage of fault for operating the vessel while over the legal blood alcohol level. I never said that had he been sober it would have prevented the accident but we will never know that. Changing the scenario with the light definitely working and the operator sober also change what his awareness levels were and his response time levels were so had he noticed the engine noise or powerboats lights 1/2 mile away that would have given him 40 seconds reaction time to do something ,1/4 mile away 20 seconds etc etc. But the sailboat claimed it had vitality no time to react. i belive partly due to a failure to maintain proper watch. I got no dog in this California fight but I was just surprised by the poll results here on SBO that so many gave the powerboat 100% responsibility for the accident, as I stated earlier it would indicate to me a wholesale miss understanding of the laws of navigation and boating under the influence. I still contend that both parties are responsible with the powerboat operator holding the overwhelming share. Got to wonder if given the opportunity go re-live the situation would the a sailboat operator still have gone for the ride and taken the helm ? Since apparently he is not faulted by so many for his contributing actions of BUI.

 

[Douglast]

a few years back in a northern Town a fella who was over the limit a few points or so hit a fella on a peddle bike and killed him....the cops charge him with vehicular manslaughter/criminal negligence causing death,the Judge ruled that given the light factor of the evening,the bad corner,the bike rider not on the shoulder,the bike not having reflectors,the legal speed the vehicle was traveling at...etc etc that the probability of the same result would have happened with the driver sober or any sober driver...so the fella was let off...i thought that was a brave and correct verdict by the Judge....one scene that always crosses my mind is....we never do a walk around our vehicle generally at night in the dark at shopping malls/bowling alley etc etc for anyone underneath passed out right behind the vehicle etc...so if we a accidently back over them its unlikely we would be at fault...but if a couple of drinks are in us it becomes a serious crime...so automatically guilty with severe penalty for something that would have the same result stone sober just should be a window for consideration and thought at times

 

[John]

obscuring the point

Tim,

I'm not sure what I would have done to actively avoid the collusion but I do know this I would have been sober. Drinking and operating a vehicle or vessel is just wrong. .... there may not have been anything that could have been done but without being there first hand we will never real know the answer to that. I have to believe that the operators response time and awareness times were diminished by the alcohol.

All of this talk about the sailboat operator having been over the limit is really nit-picking which serves to obscure the main issue. It reminds me of the incident in Pakistan (I believe it was) where a woman had an adulturous relationship and was then whipped on orders from the court. Sure, maybe she shouldn't have had that relationship, but that is such small, chump change compared to the bigger issue.

It is absolutely clear that Purdock bears the overwhelming majority of the responsibility and that the "criminal justice" system is conspiring to get him off scot free. Had Purdock been charged with manslaughte and Dinius been also charged with BUI, that would be different. Anybody who writes about this issue and simply ignores that basic fact is ignoring reality.

 

[Bad Obsession]

The whole incident is a tragety of errors. Dinius should not have been drinking if he was going to take the helm at all. He should have told the boat operator that he had been drinking and had the other person take the helm instead of him.

Furthermore.....Remember it takes sometime before someone is breath or blood tested. The deputies have to give him standardized field sobriety tests, which take some time, they have to then arrest him, deal with the boat crash, transport him to the facility where the blood or breath test is located, read implied concent, go through a 20 minute waiting period, and the test itself takes some time because if it is breath it can require 2-3 samples, there is a 2 minute waiting period between the samples, and it takes time to enter in all the data for the breath test. I would say that this happened about 2 hours, at least, after the crash.

Roughly, the average person metabolizes .01 grams per 210 liters of breath of alcohol an hour. That would mean that Dinius would have been at least at a .10 grams per 210 liters of breath at the time of the crash. The legal limit being .08 grams per 210 liters of breath.

With alcohol, actual imparment begins at .04 grams per 210 liters of breath. At this level people will experience slower reaction time.

The point is that we can also learn something for ourselves from this case. When you are operating your boat.....Don't drink anything at all!!!!!! Remember, you can be driving safely and some other jerk can hit you! Even though you are the one who was struck some liability will lay on your shoulders because you are considered impared.

As I have already said, an outside agency should have investigated the case and a different Commonwealth Attorney should have been given the results of this case.

I don't believet that this is a large wide-spread conspiracy that runs all the way up to the judge. There would be too many people involved in this for this to happen.

This whole incident is a horrible ordeal for the family that lost a loved one. It will never be out of the minds of the deputy and Dinius.

In my opinion, if you charge one, you have to charge both. Dinius could have been simply charged with BUI and that would have been fair. The Deputy could have been charged with reckless operation of a water craft. The fact that both parties have some piece of the blame in this one is why neither should have been charged with the manslaughter.

 

[Ross]

Folks , this trial is far from over. The prosecution has not yet rested and the defence has not presented its case. There have been no closing arguments yet. The ABC news group is on top of this and is making sure it gets the proper attention. It maybe the best thing to happen in Lake County in many years. It has shown a spot light on a corrupt law enforcement organization and posibly the DA's office. I will wait until next week to see how this plays out.

 

[petersea]

OK.......To all of you who think I am obscuring the point or that I am a "kind of you " I get the cover up and I get the fact that the powerboat operator was wrong (overwhelming wrong) I stated that several times. But what I don't get is that so many think the sailboat operator has no responsibility. I would stress responsibility not blame for the accident. Very very few accidents are entirely one parties fault. Here is my contention, the owner and operator should have never been out on the water since both had been admittedly drinking. They should never have been operating the boat. The power boat operator was just a guilty of this as well (as well as numerous other issues that night). I agree and understand that the power boat operator should have been charged (with the manslaughter charge). Some of you want to take the alcohol out of the equation with "had they been sober" scenario or had they been drinking water, Well that is just wrong because they were drinking as evidenced by sailboat operators blood alcohol level. The alcohol goes to diminished capacity is awareness and response time so it belongs in the equation. To remove it is to change the fact of the case.
If you will give me the analogy to DWI vs BUI. Sailboat operator and owner should have never left the dock that night. That is where they were wrong. This would be true of the driver who get in a car and drives after having been drinking. If the drunk driver does not have accident or does not get arrested for DUI does this mean he did not break the law ?? Does he some how become relieved of his responsibility to not have every gotten behind the wheel ?? In the case in question with the powerboat and sailboat both operators were wrong due to the drinking issue. Those who are opposing my point of view contend that the sailboat did not do anything wrong therefore has no responsibility however the fact that he was operating his vessel with diminished capacity (response and awareness times due to alcohol) put some of the responsibilities on him forever having left the dock. It will never be know it the accident would have been averted if everyone was sober, it still could have happened but at least alcohol would not be part of the scenario. ANY TIME a person gets behind the wheel (car or boat) they assume some responsibility for their actions. Just being in a drinking and driving situation is WRONG. To the conspiracy theorist out there if you look at sailboat operator situation with out the powerboat involved he was clearly BUI. He had no legal right to operate the vessel. The fact that the power boat operator was 10 times more wrong does not make the sailboat operator right or relieve him of his obligations to operate safely. HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER LEFT THE DOCK. What was he thinking when he even went for a ride with someone who had been drinking ?? If that was your child would it have been OK ?? Don't we preach don't ever get in a car with someone who has been drinking ?? What is is OK to get in a boat with someone who has been drinking ??? If your child was the sailboat operator could you really look them in the face and say they did nothing wrong ??

I will wait for the jury to return the verdict before I make anymore comments but I truly feel that Dinius is and will be found guilty of BUI. As for Purdock I also hope he is some how made to face his responsibility here either criminally of civilly. I will go one step further and even suggest the prosecutor here is wrong for not bring charges against Purdock. The local police are wrong for protecting one of there own who clearly has some big time issues here. Hopefully the California Attorney General will review the after is runs its course or maybe a federal authority may step in in the future.

I really am saddened by the fact that apparently so many still think it is OK to operator a vehicle or vessel after having been drinking. There is a appropriate time to enjoy a drink but it is never when operating a boat ! !

 

[Tim R.]

I really am saddened by the fact that apparently so many still think it is OK to operator a vehicle or vessel after having been drinking. There is a appropriate time to enjoy a drink but it is never when operating a boat ! !

I do not think anyone here has come out and said it is ok to drink excessively and operate a vehicle be it a car or boat.

When I anchor my boat, I have a few beers and maybe a shot of whiskey. While I do not drink enough to really get drunk, I may be over the legal limit at any given time. Technically I am still in command of my vessel. What happens when a powerboat runs me down?

Last night at the end of our race while sailing back to the club my crew and I had 1 beer. My crew is fine with this and have no problem with it. Many times I will turn over the helm to a crew member so I can relax a little. If someone's child was on board I would refrain. I see nothing wrong with this.