Boating Accident
 

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...863/-1/CITIZEN
New article on boat accident. Anyone want to guess the outcome based on what has happened so far?

Good "Topic" for discussion!
 

Hi SunBeam,
I have wondered why no one mentioned the trial all through the trial. It stayed pretty much "out of the public," here on the forum, but I too, wonder what forum members think. I will give my "thoughts," and I hope I don't get beat to death for them, but they are only MY thoughts.
First, I have to think (regardless of the drinking, because it was never proven she was legally drunk), it was most likely just an accident. We all know how fast, and sudden, lake conditions change. We see storms come so quickly during the day, I can only imagine a storm sneaking in at night. Sure they were "fooling around," going to pull a prank on her Dad..so what! That's what kids do, and it's all in fun. They were all good friends, and meant no harm to anyone, or anything. So, it was just an accident, that could have happened to you, or me, or anyone else. The fact that she was a "high Profile person," in the Lakes Region, in effect, makes her a "Prime Target," to set an "example." I personaly (and I Stress Personaly) think she has paid a high enough price for a life altering accident. Her best friend was killed, her other best friend injured, and she, herself, severely injured and disfigured, FOR LIFE! She is going to see the cause and effects of her misjudgemet, and the effects of a storm at night, every day, for the rest of her life. She doesn't need (and shouldn't) to go to jail, to be reminded of it. If everyone of us who have ever been involved in an accident (of any type) were put on public trial, and sent to jail, we'd most likely, all have some kind of criminal record. It's time to call it, what it was, a tragic and horrible accident. Nothing more, nothing less! I have never met this poor woman, and I feel for her and her friends. I followed the trial, and know all the details, so I feel I am not speaking out of turn. We all need to accept the fact, that in our lives, accidents DO happen, and this was one of them! And I think we have ALL learned something from her accident!
There, I've said my two cents worth.
"The Eagle"

For someone 'extremely fragile', she sure didn't have a problem speeding and texting while driving, or cracking a big smile when they were removing her handcuffs.

That lawyer ought to be tarred and feathered.:(

For the record, the Union Leader email posts in today's paper on this subject from F L Less are not from me. Someone with bad faith and bad intention is writing them to deceive........and it's NOT me! .. :eek:

At this point I have no guess on the out come. But that Lawyer makes my stomach turn. What a scum bucket tactic to try and keep his client out of jail.
I have a very heartless and unsympathetic mind when it comes to crime and punishment. You do the crime you pay the time. She was convicted by a panel of her peers the law has a minimum and maximum penalty. Which involves Jail time... Therefore she goes to jail period end of story... for how long that is the judges decision, even if it is a week with probation after words a week in a cell is a long time to rethink what you have done.

Although I feel for everyone involved in this tragedy I see this latest move as one to circumvent the laws of the land because "she is special". That argument is old tired and I am sorry it time to start punishing people they way they need to be punished. Harshly and swiftly. I am sorry her face is all screwed up but that doesn't excuse her from jail, no way no how. The problem in this country is we moved away from public punishment. Hang murders on the gallows was to much ( and I will agree with that one), chain gangs where cruel and unusual punishment. But you know what when hard time was hard time, the crime rates where lower....the percentage of the population in jail was less....being in screwing up in life and being convicted of a major crime means punishment, and that what needs to happen here... not a get out of jail card .....

O.K. One side of me agrees< BUT>
If this was some middle class guy that got in an accident that killed someone and couldn't pass a breathalizer test and beer cans next to the vehicle and could not afford a good lawyer to find guys that picked up beer cans along the highway, there fore they probably didn't belong to the driver. Can we now compare averyone else that gets in this situation with this case even though he does not have a good lawyer. I doubt the results will be the same.
Most middle class people try to follow tax laws (within reason) however, if you could afford an expensive tax attorney you could avoid those pesky taxes.
It just says if you can afford it Laws dont' necessarily apply to you. For instance you may have to earn $1800 before taxes for a vacation, but if you are a businessman you can fly to expensive locations go fishing and talk ab out business and it reduces your taxes .
The poor don't pay, the rich are smarter and they don't pay but the guy in the middle supports the whole system
Just My thoughts.

Tell that to Dan Littlefield...........that theory didn't work out too wll for him.

Yes, but he was a man, not a woman.:(

Problem solved
 

Why doesn't someone just give her a helmet or face mask, possibly similar to the one like Hannibal Lecter, when she goes to prison. That could possibly a solution...she deserves jail time for her irresponsible actions.

Really??
 

OK...couple things...
First, are you serious about the trial not being discussed on this forum, or was that sarcasm? It was discussed every day. Every aspect of it. Over and over and over and over and over again. The thread has over 1100 replies and is the single most viewed topic in the history of this forum with 140,000 + views.
And, while I don't wish to start the whole debate all over again, I would say I strongly disagree with you.
"Just an accident"? "not drunk"? Are you for real?
BOC .15 (should be enough evidence right there). Admitted to being in a bar for 5 hours. Admitted that the open vodka bottle on the boat was for a drink they made "for the ride". Empty beer cans on the boat.
I think I want you to be on my jury if I should ever be accused of OUI.
"Just an accident"? Everyone involved admits visibility was zero. WHICH MEANS YOU CAN'T SEE 5 FEET IN FRONT OF YOU! No one disputes this fact. Zero visibility. Yet she powered back up from headway speed to 28MPH. I ask you...this is a decision a clear thinking person makes???
Negligent no matter how you slice it. Sorry, not "just an accident".

I have stayed completly out of this conversation for a couple of reasons,
one, I am not a boater,
two, I believe that this should be tried in the courtroom as we don't have the information as presented to the jury.

But I am disgusted with the several posts that make a judgment based on a photograph of her (or anyone) smiling, or based on any expression photographed at all. She (or anyone) may simply have been momentarily being polite to (in this case) a police office who is removing her cuffs.

To extrapolate that expression into some proof of guilt, or proof of mindset at all, is ridiculous.

For crips sake, quit already.

Not Mentioned ?
 

FYI ... see the last 200 or so posts.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6190

Don't kid yourself
 

I just sent my 6-figure check to the IRS yesterday. Don't tell me we don't pay! I'm sick of listening to this crap that the "rich" don't pay. I bust my butt in my business, earn a decent living, and all I hear about is that we're the bad guys. Maybe Mr. Obama should start paying for good lawyers so the poor people and "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS" can get equal justice. He seems to be trying to make everything else equal given his "trickle up poverty" policies. Ok, Erica's family had money and paid for a decent attorney. Anyone in the same position would take the same approach, don't tell me otherwise.

Thank you sa meridith !!! I could not believe anyone else didn't say that any sooner. COMMON SENSE, when did it get thrown out the window? Not guilty, cmon !!! If, I mean when she does get jail time, maybe she can get BUBBAETTE to protect her while she is in there?

One the accident: The whole thing just makes you think about how your life can change in the blink of an eye. Driver of the boat, one of the passengers, a family member or relative of anyone involved, makes me feel fortunate with my life.

Having said that and on the Tax Topic: We are middle class hard working and getting the stuffing punched out of us with taxes. Without some extensions to the current Bush guidelines in place, we could go as high as 39% next year not counting any health care add on fee! .39 out of every $1.00 with some 48% of the country not paying any federal income tax?????

While I agree with many of the points stated about taxes, please don't let this become a political discussion! We can do that elsewhere!

Don's job is hard enough as it is...

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=9483

Respectfully disagree
 

She WAS legally drunk. Her blood alcohol levels show she was. The other evidence backs it up. The jury probably didn't want to dump the harsher penalties on her, feeling sorry for her as you are but it isn't right. She should have been convicted on that charge as well if the jury was impartial.

She is a little old to be considered a "kid" and be excused for childish behavior. I don't care what her intentions were around the prank she planned, that is irrelevant.

NO, it wouldn't have happened to me because I wouldn't have been drinking and if I couldn't see where I was going I would have been operating at headway speed and I wouldn't have been out at night without a GPS unit. Her DECISIONS put her in the position she is in. I would not make those decisions. Maybe it is possible I could have run into an island given terrible visibility but I would have done it at 5 MPH with far less devastating results.

Storms can pop up suddenly and we are expected to make prudent reactions to them. Her actions were NOT prudent and THAT is why she was found guilty. Bad weather is NOT an excuse.

There is no targeting of her in any special way. She was in an accident that killed one person and severely injured two others. She was tried for her responsibility for that accident just like any other person would be. A fatality in a motor vehicle accident makes it a serious legal issue and it was rightfully treated that way.

Yes, she has and is suffering for her actions. The judge can take some of that into account when sentencing her to allow for justice. I recognize that a lot of people make bad decisions and push the limits and luckily get away with it all the time. But we have laws in place that specify responsibility when our luck fails us. When any one of us ends up in the same position as her the law says we should all be treated equally. That seems in this case to require some jail time no matter how sympathetic we feel toward her.

It is unclear to me why her facial reconstruction is an issue. She could be directed to a prison where it would be unlikely to get into any altercations. And if she can whiz down the highway at 84 MPH it seems like she isn't too worried about her fragility.

As to her running the business, that is irrelevant. Based on that thinking no businessman should be set to jail because it would be disruptive to the business. With all the responsibilities she had maybe she should have been more careful to begin with.

I agree, and how this thread ever got started in the general discussion forum, is way beyond a total disregard for this website!!!!
The very DEAD HORSE that has been beaten way beyond death, needs to be put in the BOATING FORUM, so it can go the way and be locked in it's proper place. After all,
People can speculate All They Want, Put Yourself in the drivers seat and you will find that the Courts and Judges and jury will decide where you're butt ends, and the rest of you lands! Innocent or guilty! With no rocket science!



Terry
__________________________

I didn't expect to get hung!
 

Come on Guys and Gals, I only expressed an opinion on "an Accident!" I agree 100% that "if you do the crime you do the time." That is NOT what I was saying. Do you hang a person who steals a loaf of bread to feed a faimly?" (only an expression!) I only wanted you to think about "what punishment fits the crime!" Was the "crime" intentional? Was it premeditated? Was there intent to do harm? Did she plan to smash into the island? Did she intend to kill her friend? No! None of the above. It's not like she was "Sharon Tate," or "Lizzy Borden." She was just (irregardless of her social statue, and financial situtation) a gal out with friends, to pull a simple harmless prank on her Dad, that took a Tragic turn in a split second. It could happen to any one of us..just think about that, for one minute. Now ask yourself, "What good is it going to do, to put her in jail?" Even the family of the poor gal killed, think she should not be sent to jail. IF she intentionally caused and planned to cause that accident, then yes, send her to jail. But it would do ALL of us better justice, if she spent time, speaking to the youth of the Lakes Region about the irreversible loss (the death of her friend and the disfigurement of herself) that misjudgemnet and yes, drinking causes, it may make them possibly "Think" before they make the same mistakes. That was all I was trying to say!
As far as her "wealth and the cost of an attorney," give me a break! Lawyers are traditionally crooks! Here's a fact for you. I have been involved in a dispute with my home town, over a neighbor who built a home 12 feet off my lot line with a 20 side line requirement, using six forged and altered "certified Plot plans," added three additions without any building permits or plans, was allowed to do it by the town's building inspector (who has been "terminated," last year for other misdoings). The Town refused to even look at the forged documents and allowed him to do it. Now that the fraud has been "brought to light," by my suit, I have been fighting over 11 years to get it before a judge, ( because the town keeps appealing decisions) and has cost me well over $20,000 thus far, for something that never should have happened. All I do is shell out money to an attorney. ANY court issue that involves a lawyer will cost you a fortune, let alone a criminal case. Answer this question, "How much money are YOU willing to spend to defend YOURSELF!"
As far as was I being "smart," when I stated it was never mentioned, NO I wasn't trying to be smart. I just had not been very active on the forum (due to health reasons the past couple years) and missed all the "gossip," about the trial. I am not the type of person who would make any "smart," or sarcastic comments about our beloved forum. I apologize if I offended anyone for stating my personal opinion. Next time I'll know better than to open my mouth.
"The Eagle"

Give me a break - I have been quiet about this but I finally have to make my comments.

I attended the boat show in Milford on 4/10 and had a chance encounter with Erica Blizzard. Oh Boy!

BTW the show was good

So now we have Erica Blizzard the 2nd person (family member) associated with a marina on Winnipesaukee convicted of negligent homicide in a boating accident on the lake in recent time. As I said above Erica was at the Great Northeast Boat show on the 10th. She even said hi as she passed me. (honestly a good business practice) Never met her before or know her. Her lawyer wants her to not serve any prison time because of her injuries and that it might kill her if she were in prison and had another facial injury plus the business may suffer if she is in prison. People could even loose their jobs. WHAT????

Erica sure had plenty of energy as she was walking across the floor into Lakeport Landings display area. No impediment, breathing or other issues did I notice. Even with her facial injuries, which are severe, it appears that she can function just fine. So I see no reason for her not to serve her time like anyone else would – of course I wait to see exactly what the judge hands down for her sentence. And on top of that I so far have seen no real remorse from her and I wait to see what she does at her sentencing. Erica does have money unlike some people who have little or none and go to prison. She can afford to pay for her own continuing medical care if she does go to prison. We the citizens of NH did not cause her injuries and should not pay for them if she goes to prison.

On the business side which the lawyer brought up: The stigma associated with a senior management and/or family member still working at a company after being convicted of a crime such as this can destroy a business. People will say we support you but in reality people back away from the convicted people and their business. And yes, I have seen this done another time involving another family and the boating death of a child on a lake not far from Winni in the 90’s. The convicted operator of that boat was removed from his family business because they could not chance even the perception that their working at the company would keep the tragedy and conviction in the customer’s eyes and thus keep people away from the business. In this case it caused a rift in the family too. Littlefield is no longer associated with Shep Brown’s but was before his conviction. He now lives outside of New England after serving his sentence.

BTW I do believe in giving a person a 2nd chance at being a productive member of society after being convicted and sentenced of a crime. Erica does deserve that but only after she has served whatever sentence is handed down by the court. I do believe Erica deserves to serve jail time for the negligent homicide. The other 2 convicted boat operators I mentioned here served their prison and parole time so why not her. Sorry if a prison sentence destroys her business but that is a result of her actions and no one else’s and she should have thought of that before the 1st drink, starting the boat or going out on the lake that night. As a business owner you are always in the public’s eye and judgment both pro and con and must be cognizant of that at all times

So that is how I see it. JMHO.

Eagle keep Posting
 

Eagle
Keep on posting, you obviously hit a nerve with some people. Some could be close to the families involved and rightfully so their opinions matter. I wonder if their postings would be different if she had not been drinking and this whole tragedy was nothing but a so called accident? Is it the alcohol which makes some feel jail time is warranted? We all know how after a while we feel like we know our parts of the lake like the back of our hands. With a GPS it makes one feel even more secure and that may account for the (estimated) 28 miles per hour. How many times had she made this trip back from Wolfboro?
I was not at the trial and don't profess to be any kind of expert but I often wonder if there are other ways to make good of a bad situation without jail time for someone who obviously did not go out that night with the intent of the outcome. I guess that is why we have the judicial system we do. Let it run it's course.

Excellent posts by "jeffk" and "Just Sold". "TheEagle" appears to live in a fantasy world.

Two Eagles
 

Wanted to point out, in case, like me, you did not realize there are two "Eagles" posting in this thread. "Eagle" and "The Eagle".
Anyway...
While I agree this is a dead horse being beaten well past it's time, I want to post my final thought on the matter.
Since the trial ended, although I have been outspoken about the OUI aspect of the case, it is not what bothers me the most about he events of that evening.
What bothers me...and to aswer your questions "The Eagle"... is the 28 MPH is zero visibility. The Eagle asks, "Was there intent to do harm?" "Was the crime intentional?"
I say yes to both questions.
Assume for a minute she is indeed stone cold sober. Hasn't had a drink in 5 years.
She is the captain of that boat, and her passengers have every right to expect the captain will make correct and accurate decisions. They have the right to expect she will keep them out of harms way. When she put her hand on that throttle, and decided the proper speed, in zero visibility, AT NIGHT, was 28 MPH, she was "intentionally" putting them in harms way. It would be the same thing as leading two people into a burning building. Are you going to get out OK? Maybe...but why in Christ's name would go into the building in the first place?
Her being sober makes the decision even worse. If she was drunk, well then, that would explain everything else. But she wants us to believe she was sober, and decided 28 MPH was the proper speed?
If the weather was fine, and it was bright and sunny in the middle of the afternoon...yes, I could say this was just an accident. She must have somehow become distracted, and maybe veered off course very quickly, with no chance to recover. I could buy that.
But, even if you have never been on a boat in your life, wouldn't you assume that if you can't see, you'd go as slow as possible?
Just not good...

With respect because you are "The Eagle" and obviously a serious person:

Using "intentional" and premeditated" as requirements means that no drunk driver could ever be jailed no matter how many people they killed.

Many people are jailed for crimes they did not intend to commit. We all have a duty to society, not to endanger innocent people by our reckless actions.

I passed a road sign yesterday that said:

Not hanging you or Erica
 

I hope you don't think I am out to hang you or Erica. You took some time to state your opinion and I took some time to respectfully express mine. We are both entitled to do so and not required to agree. I am not asking for harsh treatment of Erica, simply what the law requires. That is enforcing responsibility for her actions. That is not hanging, that is justice.

What good it will do is that people will know that the law is enforced fairly and equally. She was found guilty of negligent homicide. The name of the charge, "negligent", implies it was without intent or "accidental". Despite that, the law advocates imprisonment as an appropriate punishment. If she had intended to kill someone she would have been convicted on murder charges. The negligent homicide statute is designed to address fatalities without intent.

Also, maybe a few people will remember Dan Littlefield and Erica Blizzzard and have a few less drinks and slow down under poor conditions so we will have less of these accidents. They will realize the consequences can include jail time and disruption of your business and your life and maybe they will make better choices for themselves and others who they might harm.

This is amazing.

Let's just for a minute subtract the entire case here for a minute and think about this in a more technical manner versus an emotional one. The very foundation of this country was that we as people can and should be free to do as we wish. In order to maintain a civilized society it's also necessary to put reasonable barriers or laws in place for the overall good of the citizens. These laws exist to protect our way of life and maintain a safe and orderly society. In order for things to function correctly these laws must be followed and if broken then with due process those violators will either be punished or exonerated. Now what good is it to have these laws if they are either not enforced or selectively enforced? What does that set as an example for everyone else as observers? What some are allowed to break the law and get away with no punishment but others may not? Sorry that's neither fair nor a precedent that should be set, or followed for that matter. As sad as this story may be, the facts of the case stand on themselves and there is just cause for punishment, and whatever personal suffering that may also be caused does not count in my opinion. Although there was no intention to cause harm, that doesn't mean a get out of jail free card. The fact there was alcohol involved lessens my sympathy. Either way harm was done, although not pre-meditated, it comes with consequences. As this circles back to where I started, we are given the right to choose what we do with our freedoms, but must also take responsibility for those choices. Anything less is a slap in the face to all of us law abiding citizens.

Have you ever gone through a stop sign or a red light and only realized after it was too late that you needed to stop? What if your actions resulted in an accident that killed someone because you were negligent? So should you lose your freedom because you committed a negligent act and enforcing the laws on the books is important?

What I can't stand through all of this had been the stance of some people who act as if they have never made a single bad decision or action in their life. I'll even wager that some on this board have driven while over the limit and may simply have never been caught.

The problem with her going to jail and anyone who may drive drunk is the punishment is reactionary. A mandatory jail sentence for first-time OUI would be more appropriate to be a deterrent BEFORE an accident happens.

Also, it appears that during the trial nobody on our expert law forum brought up the x-factor that if her face was maimed that it would lead to sympathetic jurors.

In the end, this will be about money. I suspect that Blizzard will or already has been sued in civil court.

Boy Have things changed here!
 

I rememeber when you could post your opinion, and not get slammed by everyone. Boy has this forum changed while I was recovering. There is a condition called "Reasonable Doubt," that I used in some of my thinking. First the OUI, had doubt. Fact: Extreme blood loss, will greatly effect readings. Test yourself. How much can you drink without getting "Impared"? Now before you drink, go donate a pint of blood, then go home and take a drink or two, and see how fast it affects you. Her OUI charge came after the blood test at the hospital after loosing an extreme amount of blood. Does it prove or dis prove her ability before the accident? NO! That's called "Reasonable Doubt!" One expert claims she was going over 28 miles an hour, and another expert confirmed she was going only 18 MPH, as she claims. What does that prove? "Reasonable Doubt!" So a jury of her "peers," found her guilty for the death, by Negligence. I really wonder how much of the decision was based on bias, because of the "public Opinion"? It seems a lot of forum members convicted her, before the trial even began. One member said they hoped I'd be on the jury if they were on trial. If I were, I would not pre-convict them, and listen to all the "experts," and make a decision based on evidence and not on "who you are." Remember, if there is "reasonable Doubt," then you must find them not-guilty. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Does it always work in favor of the innicent? NO, But it's supposed to. Am I now saying she was not guilty, NO, I wasn't on the Jury. I only stated MY opinion, baised by what I read about the Expert Witnesses. (even the other victim stated they were not drunk..what if the other gal was driving?) MY OPINION was that the generall public would be better served by her letting others SEE what happens when you use poor judgement. Let them see first hand the damage caused by not using common sense. When I was in High School, I "heard" a lot about a place called Vietnam. I never had any idea of what it was UNTIL I served two tours. See what I'm trying to say? Lock her up, and they hear something about it, let them SEE it and it makes them think!
After all this I now have a good idea of how the Salem Witch Trials were run. HANG Em UP! I hope and pray none, of you ever get in a situtation where you need someone to use common sense, when it comes to making a decision that will give or not give you a second chance to make ammends. This is my last post on this issue.
"The Eagle" (Not to be confused with Eagle)

Punishment is important as a deterent.

There too many people on this lake that think that the heavy drinking is a key component to the boating lifestyle. I've personally seen boats leave our marina with a case of beer per person plus various mixed drinks, go to a sandbar, and come back a few hours later with all empties.

I talk to the boat drivers and they say that they keep their own consumption within reason. They still drink, but the only thing slowing them down is fear of arrest. Not one of them believes they need to be sober to drive a boat.

Most of them have more money then common sense. If you told them, the worst they would get was a fine and community service, they would have no deterent. The lake would be a very dangerous place.

Revocation solves one problem.
 

1) She has surgeries ahead to remind her of her bad decisions, and must live forevermore with having killed a friend.

2) I'd favor "community service" for Erica, following a permanent revocation of her boating certificate from any state and in any state.

(And probation).

BTW: Littlefield was banned from Lake Winnipesaukee for the long period preceding his trial.

Reasonable Doubt??
 

The Eagle,

With all due respect, there is no reasonable doubt that her decision to operate her vessel above a safe and prudent speed for the visibility conditions that night led to the death of another human being. That fact alone is all any jury would need to convict her.

To THE EAGLE: Thankfully, the jury saw past the "reasonable doubt" that the defense attorney tried to create, and went with the solid evidence of her guilt. She's lucky the jury went easy on her.

Another Take
 

The dialog on this thread.. and the other one, is Not About Justice. It's about GET THIS RICH.............Person of Privilege.

Try this scenario: A poor Section 8 Black Women in a John Boat with two friends...fishing for food for their family. The boat capsizes in rough water in broad daylight...the water is cold... One of the friends drowns. The poor Black Women operating the tiller on the outboard motor is the "Captain" ....NO..?? She IS responsible for the death of her friend.......NO..?

She (The Captain) made a wrong decision to go out this day. The boat sank. She didn't read the weather right. Should she go to Prison for this offence...? Other than sincere sympathy for ALL the women on the boat....we wouldn't be talking about this incident...would we..??? :confused: NB

Reasonable Doubt does not equal absolute certainty
 

If one witness says 18 mph and another says 28 mph, that is not reasonable doubt, it is some doubt. The reasonable comes into play when the jurors have to decide which witness is more credible. They do not have to be completely certain and can have some doubt.

If two witnesses say the opposite thing and that is called reasonable doubt, then no one would ever be convicted. Juries have to decide which witnesses' testimony is beyond mere doubt, but to a higher level of certainty but not absolute certainty.

I was on a drunk driving trial a few years ago and after much deliberation one woman still would not convict because she misunderstood the directions. She thought the defendent had to be drop dead drunk to be convicted. When the judge explained .... enough to drink to be impaired, she immediately voted to convict as she felt that one drink was enough to be impaired.

Erica said she had 3 drinks over a period of a few hours. In order to have a BAC of a .15% a 140lb female has had 4 drinks in an hour.

I agree with jeffk, she was legally drunk, nearly twice the legal limit. If you are interested read on about the effects of alcohol at various BAC levels. Erica's level is in red.

I don't know why juries feel sorry for drunk drivers and have trouble convicting.

Otherwise... lets do the no rain dance!!:)

BAL .02 %-.03 %: You feel mildly relaxed and maybe a little lightheaded. Your inhibitions are slightly loosened, and whatever mood you were in before you started drinking may be mildly intensified.

BAL .05 %-.06 %: You feel warm and relaxed. If you're the shy type when you're sober, you lose your feelings of shyness. Your behavior may become exaggerated, making you talk louder or faster or act bolder than usual. Emotions are intensified, so your good moods are better and your bad moods are worse. You may also feel a mild sense of euphoria.

BAL .08 %-.09 %: You believe you're functioning better than you actually are. At this level, you may start to slur your speech. Your sense of balance is probably off, and your motor skills are starting to become impaired. Your ability to see and hear clearly is diminished. Your judgment is being affected, so it's difficult for you to decide whether or not to continue drinking. Your ability to evaluate sexual situations is impaired. Students may jokingly refer to this state of mind as beer goggles, but this BAL can have serious repercussions.

BAL .10 %-.12 %: At this level, you feel euphoric, but you lack coordination and balance. Your motor skills are markedly impaired, as are your judgment and memory. You probably don't remember how many drinks you've had. Your emotions are exaggerated, and some people become loud, aggressive, or belligerent. If you're a guy, you may have trouble getting an erection when your BAL is this high.

BAL .14 %-.17 %: Your euphoric feelings may give way to unpleasant feelings. You have difficulty talking, walking, or even standing. Your judgment and perception are severely impaired. You may become more aggressive, and there is an increased risk of accidentally injuring yourself or others. This is the point when you may experience a blackout.

BAL .20 %: You feel confused, dazed, or otherwise disoriented. You need help to stand up or walk. If you hurt yourself at this point, you probably won't realize it because you won't feel pain. If you are aware You've injured yourself, chances are you won't do anything about it. At this point you may experience nausea and/or start vomiting (keep in mind that for some people, a lower blood alcohol level than .20 % may cause vomiting). Your gag reflex is impaired, so you could choke if you do throw up. Since blackouts are likely at this level, you may not remember any of this.
...there is more, but you get the picture.

You didn't mention: "Was she drunk? Was she speeding?".

This statement is confusing me Island Girl. By her testimony and others, she had maybe three drinks over a period of a few hours, not 4 drinks in an hour. Your chart makes me think that the blood loss/alcohol level argument is correct, and that she wasn't .15 when the accident happened. In fact I'd wager a guess that if she were exhibiting the characteristics that are listed below for .15, they would not have been in the boat going anywhere.

"Erica said she had 3 drinks over a period of a few hours. In order to have a BAC of a .15% a 140lb female has had 4 drinks in an hour.

I agree with jeffk, she was legally drunk, nearly twice the legal limit. If you are interested read on about the effects of alcohol at various BAC levels. Erica's level is in red."

Simple really
 

If she drank what she said she drank, her BAC would be 0 by the time her blood was taken. Very simply, she was not telling the truth about her alcohol consumption. The blood loss thing is crap in my opinion. Even if it were correct and her BAC were below the legal limit as her witness proposed that is still above 0. IMHO.

IG

I don't remember anyone on this forum that had a problem with Littlefield's conviction and sentence when it came down. He was negligent when he hit another boat and killed someone he didn't know and he went to jail for it. Maybe that is the difference here. Erica hit an island and killed her best friend. If instead of an island she hit another boat that night and killed some one on it what would you think. Was she negligent? If convicted should she serve jail time. I think we are getting too wrapped up into the emotions and the unusual situation. Because it was an island, it is too weird and unfortunate to be anything but an accident. Because it was her best friend - she could never be negligent when it came to her best friend. And of course Erica's personal suffering is much greater because she killed her best friend than if it was a stranger, she shouldn't have to suffer more by going to jail.

Bottom line: given all the conditions of that night if Erica hit another boat and killed a stranger on that boat this discussion would have been over long ago and Erica would have a couple of years jail time to think about what she had done.

Still my favorite line from this discussion!!!! :laugh: