BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

[email protected]

On 19 Aug 2008 11:09:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT), said:

The problem can be analysed fairly easily:
What action could a becalmed sailboat skipper have taken to avoid
being run down by a powerboat going 40+ knots?
What action could a powerboat skipper going 40+ knots take to avoid a
becalmed sailboat?

Turn on his navigation lights? Assuming he's sober enough to see and hear
the other vessel, shine a light on his sail to make sure he's seen?

Even if the reportage of the incident & trial are all highly biased,
as you claim, the basic facts lead one to believe that this was a case
of the grossest kind of injustice. As a lawyer & officer of the court,
you should be outraged, not smugly self-satisfied. Unless you've been
a deputy sheriff yourself, and once got away with drunken manslaughter
due to cronyism, I really don't quite understand your attitude.

I'm not even particularly claiming that the reporting is biased, though I
can't help suspect that when 12 people reached a different conclusion. If
you had ever read a trial brief, you'd find my attitude easy to understand.
It's very easy to reach the wrong conclusion when you have only half of a
story.

Yes, and that was the jury's problem. The jury heard only what they
were allowed to hear. They may not have even been aware of how much of
the pertinent information was deliberately withheld from them. Then
again, who knows what went on during Jury selection. How many jurors
were in on the fix?