Hb 847 Meeting In Concord.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

Skip why do you do this. You sit back saying nothing then jump in with an accusation and long non-responsive answer. I'm sure you are aware that what I posted was correct, yet you pretend I have made some sort of mistake.

I posted that Dan was not convicted of BWI

I posted that his speed was determined to be 28 mph.

Both of those things are true! Why do you pretend I have made some kind of error? Please just answer the question. Was Dan convicted of BWI or found not- guilty of BWI? Just because you don't like his being found not-guilty is not a justification to pretend it didn't happen.

I am just presenting the facts of the case, and that the jury could and did consider Littlefield intoxicated, and that intoxication was the primary reason he was unable to maintain a proper lookut of his vessel.

That you refuse to acknowledge the facts as clearly stated by the Belknap Superior Court cast cited previously is your own business. However, the readers of this particular thread are entitled to see that your interpretation of the case is wrong.

I only step in when you grossly misrepresent case law, New Hampshire statutes or basic concepts of law.

Which you continue to do so with this particular case.

I hope this answers your questions.