I took the bait, here goes, Less punishment? No incentive? Look again at the DUI laws and driving while suspended law due to DUI conviction. The penalties are steep, I am open to opinion, I can have a difference of opinion on whether Don Aronow or Reggie Fountain did more for the sport of offshore racing, or any other performance boat related topic, I may get passionate about my position, but at the end of the day does my opinion on boats really matter, not at all. My opinion on DUI defense, charges, allegations, likelihood of guilt based on the discovery, ...those topics matter, I have been accused of DUI and was found not innocent, I was accused of DUI in 1994 (BAC of .10) when the BAC (BAC = Blood Alcohol Concentration) limit was .10. That lawyer f*cked me but good, I lost my job (company car), my house, tuition reimbursement mid-semester in graduate school. I took ownership of my mistake, I drove, the lawyer did not drive while intoxicated it was me who drove the car, I drank alcohol prior to driving, there are consequences for wrong choices/decisions. I had to pay for my wrong choice. My attorney had many defense available, the limit in NJ was .10 and he did nothing, I learned from that experience.

I gave that attorney $4,000 cash, and he plead out (guilty), he stole my money as far as I am concerned and that experience motivated me to become an attorney. I understand your position, and I said in the other thread I understand your rationale, I just did not agree with it in the other thread, you decided to bring it to this thread, your choice not mine, it was a dead issue to me, but you wanted to poke the bear, so you have my attention now. My feelings weren't hurt, children and women get their feelings hurt, but I accept your apology. I do not get paid to put my opinion on OSO, I have been here since its inception (Offshore Only), I have 1800+ post in 14 years so I don't feel compelled to post all the time, but when it comes to DUI's I will try to help those accused.

One thing that may surprise you, I will not take a case against a police office for misconduct, brutality, or tort (negligence). I do not take personal injury, medical-malpractice, or workers comp. cases either. You mention personal responsibility and consequences for our actions, and I do agree with you on that. I just don't agree with the 20 year old that drowned handcuffed...so with that we can agree to disagree.

I apologize to you if I came across as a typical Jersey hard-ass, I will keep in mind, "treat people the way I want to be treated," the Golden Rule.

Thank you, I appreciate the time you took to type your opinion and stance. I too am passionate about DWI's for personal reasons that I am sure you can guess. I don't drink, never have and never will. But I have nothing against those that do responsibly. My problem is with those that don't.

Too many times, those that cause the problems get off too easy and become the victim in their mind. They seem to feel if it was no big deal to the courts, it was no big deal for them. (I have heard this many times in my career of helping them reevaluate their priorities, I am a repo guy). I just think/feel if people are held accountable for their decisions and quite trying to throw blame everywhere but themselves, the world will slowly become better for those of us that for the most part follow the straight and narrow.

Even though I am guessing we will never totally agree on what people deserve, I think we can both appreciate each others opinion, even if we both think we are right and the other is miss-guided...

Baja I hear you as well, I do not drink either, never did but can care less if others do. The problem I have is the ones that drink too much on land and water. The day you lose someone close to you from a drunk driver is the day you will totally change your opinion about drinking unless you have a real problem, meaning you need help for your addiction.. .

I appreciate your response. I can understand your position, I became a miserable bastard when it comes time to collect from my client's (the ones on payment plans) after I keep them out of jail and or save their driving privileges, and the "no bid deal attitude" they have when it comes to paying me, and sentence compliance.

I am not the man I was when I was in my twenties with regards to partying, but time, experience, and pain due to wrong choices have caused me to think twice before repeating the same mistake(s). Thank God I was never in accident and hurt someone. I am far from holier than thou, I still drink, but I know when to say when or have someone else drive, it was a hard lesson to learn.

i could be wrong but in my mind the police are responsible for the safety of the person they have arrested&cuffed.just because someone gets arrested he is not automatically guilty,the police arrest innocent people every day,everyone who gets arrested is entitled to there day in court,this 20 year old kid wont get his.this is just my opinion and not ment to stir the pot.

Didn't get a chance to chime in on the other thread so here it goes. As a law enforcement officer, I will tell you first hand that once you take somebody into custody, they are in fact under your care and protection. If the officer in that case was negligent in how he equipped the vest or was able to secure the male who was arrested, he should be held accountable. As for the males actions, yes, they play part. Everything he did that day lead up to that situation. If he did jump in, it is a contributing factor. That is what the investigators and courts will have to decide, what were ALL the contributing factors on both ends. Once that is accomplished, then we can start passing judgements like homicide charges and such....

In regards to this thread, and in an attempt to get back on topic, any mature adult should recognize the risks involved with drinking and boating. I have made my mistakes in the past and so have others around me. If I do have a drink or two now while out on the boat it is exactly that. I will wait till I am tied up at the marina or somewhere else to relax and tie one on. I have seen the consequences of drinking both on the job and in person. I watched as a fatal dui accident ended my brother's police career and sent a friend of ours (his duty partner) to an early grave. I hope we can all learn from these mistakes and teach others so they don't continue to make headlines that mar our sport.

Securing a suspect/prisoner/detainee to any inanimate object, be it a car, bus, or boat is expressly prohibited in most cases (and is noted as prohibited in every secured transport SOP I've read thus far). Cars (and boats) crash, flip, burn, etc., and it makes extricating someone much more difficult.

A reasonable person should realize that jumping off a moving boat while handcuffed is likely to cause death or serious physical injury. That "reasonable person" standard applies to both detainee and officer, one does not get a "pass" because you're handcuffed/detained/in custody. If the officer was forbidden by policy from securing the detainee to the boat, negligence on the officer's part becomes more difficult to prove.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Hermann v. City of Louisville (6th Cir 2004) should be on lawyers', LEOs', and arbitrators' short list for reading regarding police responsibility with regard to detainees....

perhaps because the person was arrested for being impared due to being intoxicated a second officer should have assisted in the transportation of the prisioner.

One of my very close boating friends is a Texas DPS officer. By the book straight and a very pleasant person. When cuffed you are in police custody and custody means they assume certain responsibilities. Police custody is a probable cause situation later to be determined guilty or innocent. Prisoners are to be transported in safety for themselves and the arresting officers and subdued only to the point to prevent escape. This is not "Wanted: Dead or Alive".

As speedracer pointed out, The Reasonable Officer standard would apply in this situation. The basic questions to look at is; would have, could have and should have. This will apply to the officers actions and any policies that the department has in place pertaining to those same actions. If the actions or policies are contradictory to what a reasonable officer would be expected to do, then they will or should be held accountable. Not being there or having first hand accounts, its hard to make a professional opinion on who was a fault to what degree. But, the fact that the arrestee died in the officer's custody definitely raised flags that something was done incorrectly or could have been done better. I am sure that there was no malice of intent in any actions as you would find if the person was thrown overboard or beaten to death, rather negligence. But was it gross negligence or simple negligence.

Here in Pittsburgh, we have the State Fish and Boat Commission who does most of the law enforcement on the river. They always have either two or three officers per boat. This way they can physically secure somebody while in transport. Plus its a safety issue. We also have a River Rescue Unit with the Pittsburgh Police. That boat is manned with two paramedics and one police officer. They mainly do actual rescue work but can do law enforcement as well. Once again, having the extra people makes it safer for them and anybody that might be taken into custody as to prevent them from jumping in the river.

If the officer in the original incident was by himself, that rises to a higher degree of negligence. More on the departments end. If the vest was not properly put on the arrestee, that rises to a higher degree of negligence on the officer's part. If these all happened, you can see how the domino chips start lining up for something bad to happen. Believe me, there are a lot of bad policies written by unqualified people out there. Unfortunately it takes a tragedy for them to get corrected. At the same time, sometimes you do everything right and bad things still happen. Ive seen both ends. The best idea is to plan, train and act in accordance to the highest standards to minimize the chances of that tragedy.