Accident
 

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? :confused:

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.

Boating Accident
 

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.....

Because that's the law
 

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.

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.

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.

"She needs to be punished if she was sober".. WOW :confused:

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?

I believe Dave's point is she could be responsible for reckless driving even if she were not impaired by alcohol.

Not pre-judging, she did kill someone. It's not like the island crashed into the boat.

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'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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

Boat Accident/ Death off Diamond Island
 

''

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!

Accident?
 

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"

If the operator is impaired, it's not an accident.

It's a crime!

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.

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

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.

What alcohol?

What accident?

What crime?

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.

Bosting Accident
 

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.

Boat Accident
 

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.

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.

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.

boat accident
 

( let the court determine her guilt or innocense )


Great Idea people, Let It go

:D

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).

Boat Accident
 

I believe we are discussing and sharing our opinions as you suggest.

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.

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.

Boating mishap
 

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.

Boat Accident
 

Mink Islander .... I agree ... well said!

maybe not
 

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.