whats wrong with you and sharky ??? was this guy a childhood friend or something ?

maybe its me, but it seems quite obvious that the guy in the IMP crashed into the whaler and KILLED a person. whether it was malicious or accidental is the real issue. we got sharky arguing every lame excuse out there and you complaining that NJ legal system is completely out of line for prosecuting a boater who left the scene of an accident involving a fatality ?

i just don't' see your point of view.

I'm no so sure what are assumptions and what are restatements of plain fact using different language.

By the actions of the prosecutors, I think my 'handful of imaginary ghost turds' analogy was conservative, and their 'expert witness' were unimpressive if not downright loopy.

You seemed to be asserting that reprehensible (non-)conduct was somehow criminal, although without benefit of any kind of marine hit-and-run law. I don't get it.

In fact, DeGilio's legal duty and obligation was to protect his vessel and crew after an accident.

Stated another way: there is NO NJ marine hit-and-run law, AND the 'Rules of the Road,' centuries of Admiralty law, and even the Jones Act (in it's many permutations and amendments) impose a legal duty on DeGilio to safe his vessel and crew, and are carefully, purposefully mute about duties to other vessels/crew in an accident.

I fully expect prosecutors to ignore contrary laws, bury contrary & exculpatory evidence, hide and misrepresent, delay and deny and even lie (when the truth would sound better) when these inconveniences get in the way of wanting to lynch somebody.

It is a lot more difficult for me to accept that so many boaters - ESP performance boaters - are ignorant of COLREGS, as it is clearly, obviously in OUR interests to know them.

Look at it another way. If Madam Prosecutrix can ignore centuries of well-settled laws that exist, invent laws that don't exist, use the power of the state to criminalize fully legal behaviour in her efforts to lynch some misc. guy ... she can lynch you, too.

Assuming too much? I don't think so.

Bob

Dave, if you are going to follow the law, follow the law. Don't follow what you think the law ought to be.

It was a horrible, shameful accident, and DeGilio is a scuzzball, OK?

That he was a scuzzball has nothing to do with making up laws AND ignoring centuries of germane, on-point laws that DO exist.

1) There was no speed limit.
2) Post was the burdened vessel. (bow-light on/off is a minor point, but a big distraction)
3) DeGilio acted legally running off.

Colregs are real good at finding fault and assessing culpability, but anything that happens post- is CIVIL, not criminal.

What is happening is a judicial lynching (of a scuzzball).

If you're happy with that, sobeit, but at least recognise that criminalising slimy, scuzzy, smarmy (LEGAL) behaviour sucks and has nothing to do with DeGilio, hisownself.

Bob

So even after it was admitted the Imperial was the ONLY boat that hit the Whaler you've continued your rant.

First it was another boat (proven wrong), then you even hinted that Post was possibly drunk (autopsy proved otherwise), now it's the bow light defense and speed. But no, you're not taking sides.

I really feel for Post's family, for all the false propaganda you've spewed over the past few years.

AFAIK, NJ (nor any place else, to my limited knowledge) has any kind of maritime hit-and-run law, and, in fact, any such law NJ might wish to pass, if it covered Inland Waters, would be unconstitutional on face.

That said, your point is well-taken: NJ IS clearly prosecuting DeGilio for violating a law that does not exist.

Bob

Dave,

I am not looking for excuses I am looking for the facts.

Reported by MaryAnn Spoto Star Ledger in today's live reporting

"Says Robert Post cut DiGilio's boat off. 'He had the green light...someone ran the red light.' 'This accident was not his fault. He was cut off.'"


Ironically I used this as the hypothetical before this statement was made.

If someone ran a red light Dave and you had the green and collided with the other vehicle, the red light runner dies, do you feel you should go to jail for 10 years ?

When it was brought up here on the forum that another vessel was out on the water that night that left open the possibility another boat may have been involved. Especially when that said boat ran aground but yet went unreported and coincidently the Bridge Cameras that night were not recording...
Reports of the boat going through and up over the top of the Whaler with only one image of the whaler to go by at the time yes it wouldn't have been possible for the Imperial to go through at a 90 degree angle without damaging both sides of the bow and I stand by that statement until other images and facts came out. Now that it clearly shows the Imperial more or less sideswiped almost a head on collision it all makes sense now that there is no damage to the port bow or any transom damage.

So as I have been saying all along go to the video to prove that the Imperial had its lights off .

The video the defense had to bring to the jury because no one else seemed to want to show the jury this part of the video from the Fisherman's Supply showing the Imperial did have its lights ON. Along with a witness that made a statement the next day to authorities on the 3 boats he saw in the area of the inlet that night around midnight.

I hinted nothing .

Testimony proved they were drinking.

MaryAnn Spoto / Star Ledger

"Tacopina calling into question how attentive the passengers on the Whaler could have been. Citing Cliff Farren's testimony that they were 'stargazing,' Karen Kelly was under a canvas, and they had had alcoholic beverages at dinner earlier."

Amazing! What did the medical examiner determine from the autopsy about Post??? Also, if you're going to be "objective", is it possible Digilio switched props post-accident?

WOW !!!

Now I know you aren't even following the case ....

What does the propeller have to do with anything ? The Whaler never came near the transom as it was pushed away from hitting the starboard bow of the Imperial.