Fishy from the Get-Go
The basic facts of this case are known. Our casual conversation about it is in no way a "rush to judgment."
Sure, a jury will decide, but in the mean time, we do know:
1. It was a dark night
2. There was little wind.
3. A local marina owner says he saw the sailboat's running lights come on. He describes the white stern light shining brightly.
4. "Several other witnesses", including one we hear in a phone interview, report the sailboat's running lights on.
5. The panel of the wrecked O'Day shows the running light switch in the "On" position (see 4:30 mark on video).
4. No one reports the sailboat making any strange or sudden maneuvers.
5. The speedboat was the overtaking vessel.
6. The operator of the speedboat admits to traveling some 40–45 MPH. Another reitred law enforcement officer (an independent witness) estimates the speed @ 50 MPH.
7. The speedboat nailed the sailboat from almost directly behind, with enough force to smash the transom and cabin, carry him completely over the sailboat, shearing off her mast along the way and somehow damaging the prow as well.
Those are just the plain facts. Additional knowledge in this case includes:
1. The speedboat operator was a local law enforcement officer, who knows better than anyone about the dangers of excessive speed.
2. As far as we know, the DA's whole case hangs on the charge that the sailboat was not displaying nav. lights. He denies that there is any disagreement on this point, despite multiple eye-witness accounts to the contrary. As a matter of fact, he won't even listen to the question.
3. The same DA didn't charge the officer with anything, despite his recklessly excessive speed (the concept which he waffles on in this video) and presumptive failure to maintain a lookout. Ironically, it was Dinius whom the Sacramento Sheriff's Department accused of not maintaining a lookout behind him.
4. There are questions about the officer's BAC (blood alcohol content) test.
5. An investigator for the Sheriff's Dept. on the video indicates that, on a moonless night, the speed that would allow a boat operator to come to a stop within half the distance he could see would be a very slow speed indeed. He would need to be virtually "idling along."
Sure, we don't know everything, but who here can read down that list of what we do know and not think that, going into the trial, it's the cop's actions that appear to be absolutely reckless and were the direct cause of the woman's death?
Even if you want to ascribe some fault to Dinius because he failed his BAC test, what would a sober operator have been able to do, ghosting along with a speedboat barreling down on him? I think that difference is insignificant. Give him a pro formafine for that, but I don't see that as a contributing factor in the woman's death, the cop's actions overwhelm it so.
Rush to judgment? No. Persuaded by the initial evidence? Definitely.
Now, as the first poster indicated, it's up to a jury.