sad
 

Read that this morning...terrible.

Not jumping to judgment but just like with a car, nothing good happens after midnight.

I hope all recover though and live long lives.

Hate to say it but I dont find that as much sad as I find it absolutely infuriating and irresponsible.

I do find it sad for the passengers who were injured and were not in controll of situation. . . . . Sorry but intoxicated boaters piss me right the fuk off. . .

GD. I totally agree with you 110 % and still till this day do not understand why boating & sporting events bring forth such stupid irresponsible drunks. Even up here, boaters with pics of their boats having a form of alcohol in their hands is so uncool. I feel sorry for other boaters on the waterways who are 100 % sober when other boaters / drivers are not.

Ask Smarty, It wasn't their Fault...They allegedly were drinking and allegedly crashed the boat...:party-smiley-004:

Too me it is very simple.... Don't drink and drive, BAD things can and will happen... Personally, I feel bad for the boat, total waste of a nice boat.....

As a bartender, you think she would have known that,,,,,

I have to chime in. There is a way to responsibly enjoy a few beers while out. Some people don't know how to do that.

What he said^^

Operating at night is sketchy at slow speeds sober. I love night boating but, I never run fast ever at night! I run the slowest cruise speed and enjoy the calm water and stars. Another sad story. Sucks.

I feel sorry for the passengers. That's such a shame about that boat. Such a beautiful looking boat before it crashed.

I agree, my chit is on the trailer by sunset. I know myself well enough

Get the word out!! Don't boat and drive any more than you don't drink and drive! What the fuk is the difference! The alcohol industry continues to glamorize casual drinking as if it is never a problem. We need to form B.A.D.D. - Boaters Against Drunk Driving. I boat sober and love the sht out of it. Did the TOPPS poker run Saturday in a 42 Fountain w 575s without drinks and we had a blast. We need a good PR campaign emphasizing the stupidity of boating while drunk ESPECIALLY at night! Glad no one died. Hope the young guy makes it.

And I like the fact that Bob Teague and his business is a huge supporter of no drinks while boating. Congrats to what he is trying to do. IMO most of the hot spots & bars on lakes, Saturday nite those boaters a lot of them had more than few.

Yep, I have the time of my life every time I take my boat out. And I NEVER drink (not an exaggeration). People are naturally gluttons, so over consuming is in our nature.

Condolences to the passengers, even though birds of a feather...

now im confused,smarty is an attourney but what are you saying,is he representing the boat operator and did he say it was not their fault?

I don't believe this is the case here. This comment is trash dragged over from a pervious boat accident thread the other night.

I don't drink while boating and have a blast. I pee as much as the others because I drink water and sports drinks to hydrate for the festivities that come after the boat is back in storage.

We are running big power and I want to be alert. Let alone know that the safety of my crew is top of mind and I have to be on the lookout for the numb nuts who are being responsible.

You can't manage the boats, crew, and remain observant to your surroundings while being impaired.

Yea thats kinda a bad deal for the passengers. But I love to enjoy a few beers while boating. As long as I'm either planning on staying where I'm at, or just a short cruise back to the trailer. And it's always a lt a respectable speed and nothing to crazy.

On another note I love night boating cuz it's just one of the coolest thing in the world with all my lights on lighting everything up. But I only do it on lake mi or big lakes with nothing around me but lots of open water.

I think it would be interesting to hear what the DWI Attorney would have to say about this one. (thus the "baiting" first post)

The person previously stated had a VERY strong opinion about what was wrong with the BWI laws, entrapment, etc. in the other thread and how, since nothing bad happened (in regards to an accident caused by the drinker) how that thinking would play into this accident...

I would also like to know, how he would represent these people, since ALL are innocent until proven guilty? Responsibility of ones actions or does he find a loop hole to get less punishment so it can happen again, and again, and again???

Again, If you drink and boat, BAD things can and will happen...Thank god they didn't run into us...

I have to be the bad old guy, and disagree with you. I have had close calls on Lake Michigan "night boating" when other craft aren't lit up, and can't be seen until it's too late. Back in the days of the Pier 33 poker run, I was heading back to South Haven from Muskegon and nearly swamped a bass boat that was out on the lake, no lights on. I circled back to apologize and ask them if they were ok, and asked them if their lights were in working condition. The people in the bass boat were smoking weed, and didn't want to be seen. They said no big deal (as they were dumping the sh*t out of their shorts) and that they were just trying to enjoy some night air on the lake. I let them know that their were a lot of other boats that might be coming down also, so maybe the lights on would be smart???? Doesn't matter that they are on the water at night with no lights, if I'd have hit them I'd have surely killed someone, and most certainly been jailed. I had been drinking at the poker run party before heading back, and while I wasn't snockered, I wasn't stone sober either. I've never operated at night since then, and I don't drink and boat anymore either. Long story short, it won't matter what you "blow" on a PBAC unit, if you are involved in ANY sort of incident, your fault or not. They will find a way to prosecute and make your life hell.

Ask me what wise-ass????? You want to get cute with me, I am not the one.

The facts of this case are nothing like the previous thread, I am not taking the bait, start your sh*t with someone else.

Exactly!

I'll ask directly, How is being accused of intoxication any different regardless of what happened?

We have philosophical differences in the way we look at responsibility of ones actions, you made that VERY clear in the other thread. I am just trying to understand/learn your position on this one, and how you would represent them, try to get them a reduced sentence, take full responsibility or plead not guilty and go for the full acquittal. Being a well known, successful DWI Attorney, this certainly would not be your first case like this. (Accident caused by alleged BWI/DWI that caused injuries

Its not necessarily a smart ass thing, you pointed Out I was wrong in your opinion before, just trying to understand your position now, that there is slightly different circumstances, but less lethal?

Yes, I would defend her, if she paid me. that is my job. I have represented client's accused of vehicular homicide, assault by auto, all DUI related. If a defendant is wrong (guilty), than they wrong,, I can only minimize damage, but the facts and circumstances of this case aren't similar-analogous to this case at all wher a handcuffed suspect drowned in police custody. No one in this present case was is custody and handcuffed.

Entrapment? I never ever mentioned the word entrapment, try again. Any one accused of anything in your view is guilty, so there you have we have a difference opinion....I do not know all the facts of the case for me to speculate is nothing more than wasted keystrokes replying to your nonsense.

God gave us free will, self determination.....you stick with with you do, I will keep defending those accused of criminal, and motor vehicle offenses.

I am not interested in giving you my legal opinion on the internet, call me at 856-449-0939, I will discuss your problem with me then.

Stephen R. Jones

I believe people should not Drink and Drive, bottom Line... When people continue to get less punishment they have no incentive to NOT do it again. Choices have ramifications, Good and Bad. There is 2 sides to every situation, I want to make mine clear (I believe I have) and since you get paid to give yours, I think it is only fair, we understand your side.

If you feel you are being picked on, sorry..... But you opened that door previously with your strong direct opinion of how everyone else was wrong that didn't agree with you. If you are going to paste and cut, might as well add the other post in it's entirety, so they can get a full picture of your intent.

Personally I feel my point has been made now... have a great rest of the week...

Mike,

This is the reference to a prior thread her is information exchange

Quote Originally Posted by bajaholic View Post
I Respectfully disagree.... It has EVERYTHING to do with what put the kid in the position in the first place. His decisions put him in that position.

The WP is on the lake for protection of everyone that is not operating in an unsafe manor. The kid jumped by the accounts of the witnesses, he too made that decision. Ramnifications are learned ALWAYS after the fact, rarely are they learned ahead of time.

Yes... The WP officer had him in custody, He placed cuffs on him to protect himself from being accosted by the arrest'y (SOP) He placed a PFD on him, and was driving the boat to unload and book him. The WP Boat was NOT in an accident, Didn't throw him overboard (according to witnesses) nor were there any actions by the WP officer to make the kid get up and jump off by any of the accounts that have been witnessed. I Just don't see where the WP didn't provide prudence in his duties? The kid made the decision and acted on it... He is responsible for his own actions...

Again I ask: What if the kid caused a larger accident, killed a bunch of people (maybe even one of your own friends/family) Would you be *****ing about the WP not having caught him if he had witnessed something, possible as trivial as beer can overboard? I am guessing they would still be on the chopping block...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response:
I have handled hundreds of DUI cases in New Jersey, I completely disagree with your assumptions, that young man died, he was handcuffed, end of story. You are assuming he was impaired, you don't know that, nor was it proven, only alleged, his BAC could have been under the legal limit, but regardless the police are responsible for safe transport of the suspect-defendant.

I don't deal with what if's, I deal with what what happened, he is dead it was preventable, this is bullsh*t he is dead. The WP is responsible once he is in their custody.


Link to the thread where this was posted (BUI suspect drowned in police custody) http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/g...rowning-4.html

It seems quite simple. Drunk or sober, once cuffed you are in custody and the police just became responsible for your safety. A cuffed detainee clearly has less ability to do many things, including fight, flee or swim. That is the reason for cuffing in the first place. If you suffer harm because of their negligence while cuffed, they are liable because you were in their custody, and it doesn't matter if you were drunk or not. Smarty is that correct?

It doesn't matter if the suspect was drunk or not. If the suspect, in custody, did not do anything to cause harm to his or her self and the officer's actions or inaction caused the suspect harm the officer is liable. The suspect would now be labeled as the plaintiff in a law suit against the officer, law enforcement agency. It is the duty of the officer to exercise reasonable care. It all boils down to the facts, and there are so many cases, and while you and I can agree that suspect may not of been acting in a manner that contributed to his or her injury, a Judge could see it other wise.

As I said before I will not take case against a police officer (personal reasons), even if the officer is clearly wrong. I will defend the suspect in the Criminal Courts, but I will not take the same case in the Civil Court

In the case in other thread where the 20 year drowned while in custody, that case will be interesting from a legal point of view in that there are supposed witnesses who claim the suspect intentionally jumped into the water, if that is the case, I am not sure how the Missouri court will rule, my opinion is clear in other thread, the officer did not exercise a reasonable duty of care, the suspect's life vest became undone, he sank in 80 feet of water and drowned. was the life- vest properly secured? If the suspect was so impaired shouldn't he have been properly secured to the leaning post, seat, or anywhere so that he did not have the ability to be ejected form the boat by his own volition or otherwise? If securing the suspect during transport in the WP boat was not an option, then wouldn't it have been prudent ot have a second officer on board? As you can see there are alot of questions that would help in a lawsuit for the family of the 20 year old in other thread, but a Missouri Court doesn't care about a New Jersey lawyer's opinion.

Seems real ****ty to handcuff somebody on a boat. You fall in the water and now what?

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... :D

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.