Maine boating accident

[Ed Harrow]

By Portland Press Herald
GateHouse News Service
Posted Sep 24, 2008 @ 01:56 PM
Last update Sep 24, 2008 @ 04:08 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTLAND, Maine — Jurors today convicted Robert LaPointe of Medway, Mass., of aggravated drunk operation of a watercraft for his role in a boat crash that killed two people on Long Lake in Harrison last summer, but the jury was deadlocked and returned no verdict on the charges of manslaughter and reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon.

LaPointe, 39, was charged in Cumberland County Superior Court with two counts of manslaughter, two counts of aggravated drunken driving and one count of reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon.

LaPointe was driving a 32-foot Sunsation Dominator, equipped with twin 425-horsepower engines, around 9 p.m. on Aug. 11, 2007, on Long Lake. His boat ran over a 14-foot motorboat operated by Terry Raye Trott of Harrison. Trott, 55, and his passenger, Suzanne Groetzinger, 44, were killed.


See tomorrow's Daily News for more on this story.

Speechless...

[rbgarr]

His blood alcohol level was still at 0.11% some hours after the accident

[Chris Coose]

I know Stephanie Anderson pretty well and once she sinks her teeth into something she doesn't let go too softly.

I'll bet 70/30 she takes it back to court.

[ishmael]

This case has never seemed easy. While the guy driving the speedboat was clearly inebriated, and deserves some charge, I was taught that when parked you shine a light. Was there even a flashlight aboard the skiff that got run down? I know whenever I've parked in the middle of a lake I had light shining to let people know I was there. And a spot, a flashlight of some kind, to warn off a fast runner.

A funny story. When Sterling Hayden was taking the schooner Wanderer into the Pacific he gave his young charges a talk. "This is a flare gun. When you see a steamer bearing down shoot it at the pilothouse. That's the one with windshield wipers."

Anyone know the BAC of the guy running the little boat? Was that even an issue at trial?

Sad stuff.

[Bill R]

Disgusting.

[Chris Coose]

3.5 years with probation.

[watson1990]

To those of you who are only NOW asking questions ,you are too late . The trial is over and its a shame that the jury was deadlocked on the manslaughter charge. The guy was as guilty as sin and I'd love to see the ass put away for at least 15 years ...Ishmael, you have lost your chance to question the actions of anyone involved. You have an opinion but you can not go back to last year ,now, and question the jury.. Don't you think that the lawyer representing lapointe tried that ? what do you think his defense lawyers are idiots ??? they tried evey trick in the book but the jury still sent him away for 3 and a half years.I hope his life is ruined because of this !!

I live fairly near the area where the "Accident" happened and it has caused quite a stir around here . 850 horsepower motor boat !!! & drunk as well ..lock him up and throw away the key.

There should be NO funny stories associated with this post
Watson

[Ben Fuller]

About time one of the drunks on the water got jailed, even for a little while. I know this is a free country but there is no excuse for 800 hp on that lake. Unfortunately the legislature did not see it that way; some bills were introduced.

All possible defenses were tried. My experience in running fast powerboats has been that even sober you can't see small lights over the bow where you have no visibility for a goodly distance when at speed. And of course its nothing like killing the victims and sinking their boat to destroy evidence. At the end of the day there is no excuse.

I am sure this will be a topic when I meet ( as a Guide) with the Marine Patrol and the Wardens tomorrow.

Does anyone know what happened down in Buzzards last summer when a large power boat hit a sailboat from the stern, killed at least one person? Powerboat may have been running on autopilot with all below. This Maine case may set a precedent.

[Yeadon]

850 horses? was that a typo?

[watson1990]

Nope ! twin 425's on a 32 foot fibreglass boat.

[BETTY-B]

I'm not clear what 850 horsepower has to do with any of this...

DAN

[JimConlin]

Watch for the wrongful death civil suit. The miscreant will end up with nothing but his shorts.

[Yeadon]

You're talking to a guy with a pair of oars here ...

[Greg Nolan]

"I'm not clear what 850 horsepower has to do with any of this..."

850 hp made ridiculously excessive speed possible -- that's what it has do to with this.

Owning and operating a boat with 850 hp on Long Lake in Maine indicates a serious lack of judgment. Take a look at a map -- a long lake indeed, but very narrow, and on a summer day quite crowded with other boats. Operating such a boat on Long Lake at full throttle would frequently be unsafe even during the day. Long Lake is in the heart of Maine's summer recreational lake area -- many small boats are out during the day, and in August, even at night a prudent person would expect boats on the water. 850 hp, while perhaps fine for racing on the open ocean, is simply inappropriate on a lake such as Long Lake. Operating 850 hp at night on Long Lake is criminal.

There were also other indications of lack of judgment and lack of attention required to safely operate such a powerful boat by the 40 year old operator -- very high BAC, and a 19 year old female companion not his wife, and operating apparently at full throttle.

Powerful engines and very high speed can be fun in the right place, but Long Lake is not such a place.

[Chris Coose]

We have a relative who built a camp on this lake in the 60's, this particular boat was a noise nusiance in the extreme.

I was in Casco Bay one early morning and I could hear one of these guys coming on from a ways out. He ran within 50' of me with plenty of open water all around. I could hear him for at least another 2 miles ahead.
Last summer was quiet all around due I guess to fuel cost.

What do you suppose it takes per hour to wake up everybody on shore with your 850 hp.?

[Ed Harrow]

Classy guy.

23 speeding convictions (I've had my share, too)
5 convictions for failure to stop at a stop sign or traffic light!
12 license suspensions!

I still can't believe the jury on this one.

[hnsbrc]

After being nearly T-boned by a drunken boater last summer it is hard for me to have any sympathy for people taking such risks with other peoples lives. I was trolling with lights on at dusk about 5 miles from town in Voyageurs National Park. A boat came down the lake (the only boat visible for miles), almost ran up on an island, turned and blasted by me at approximately 45 knots missing me by about 20 feet not appearing to see me, then proceeded out into the middle of the lake about 1/2 mile and stopped. I proceeded about 1/2 mile toward home, but seeing the boat not moving went back to investigate. The driver was unconscious on the floor with the boat still running. At the time I wasn't sure what was wrong with him. I called on my radio (luckily someone was monitoring), took the keys and towed him 5 miles to the landing where we were met by the local fire department, the sheriff, and an ambulance which had come 25 miles from International Falls. Turns out his blood alcohol level was .36 and he had numerous priors from his home of Chicago. My home waters are very uncrowded but now I am jumpy with any other boats nearby. I vote for tougher laws and penaltys.

[gregleeber]

that kind of horse power should not be legal.

NOTHING good could come from a boat like that! And this is why I wont spend much time on my friends boat on Lake Texoma. Every 4th of July weekend there are several fatalities from this same kind of thing. I always tell him this kind of thing doesnt happen in Maine because people are responsible on the water here. Most are but this asshole needs to spend a lot more than three and a half years behind bars.

[mmd]

I'm sorry, guys, but I gotta turn an argument used in another topic on you:

"High-horsepower boats don't kill people, people kill people!"

The boat is not the evil device here, it is the irresponsible boater using it. If you really feel that certain types of boats should be outlawed because innocent people occasionally die, then by inference of type, certain types of guns (automatic weapons, handguns, large-size magazines in semi-autos, for example) should be outlawed too, because they occasionally kill innocent people when used by idiots, criminals, drunks, & fools. (Yes, I know that boats are not protected under your 2nd Amendment.)

Seriously - it is not the boat, it is the irresponsible, undertrained (unlicensed?) boater at fault. Go after him, not the boat.

Or admit that your gun laws should be drastically re-vamped too, to protect the innocent from their occasional deadly mis-use.

[Chris Coose]

Seriously - it is not the boat,

I'll hook you up with Uncle Bobby who has been coming from Michigan to summer with his family on Long Lake since the mid 60's and you can debate the matter about this particular boat with him.

[Flying Orca]

I agree with Mr Mason here. Owning such a boat, or a machine gun, or an obnoxiously loud vehicle, is not the problem. Although any or all of the above might (then again, might not) qualify one for arsehole status in my books.

[rbgarr]

MMD,
Regarding doing serious harm to people, I agree with you. OTOH there are problems that arise from certain boat designs that make it difficult for the inexperienced to manage them easily. Some large sportfishing boats only idle at pretty fast speeds and are difficult to control in tight spots. Some boats (like the one in question I'm guessing) steer very poorly at slow speeds and need to be up on a plane in order to have even moderately acceptable visibility from the helm. At the same time, sellers of these boats are not always so concerned about the 'qualifications' of purchasers to know what they are getting into.

To stretch the analogy, it's somewhat like selling loaded weapons that have inherent hair triggers to whoever wants one, but letting them learn about on their own, even if there's an accident right there in the store.

I don't claim to have a solution for the situation.

[Brian Palmer]

MMD,

To stretch the analogy, it's somewhat like selling loaded weapons that have inherent hair triggers to whoever wants one, but letting them learn about on their own, even if there's an accident right there in the store.


Or letting an 8 year old fire a fully automatic Uzi.:(

Brian

[ishmael]

I just want to be clear that my anectdote about Sterling Hayden and the flares at the pilothouse was related when this first happened, before any facts were in. It wasn't meant to make fun of the situation in anyway. We did as a kid, in not dissimilar situations when anchored fishing, always have a light shining or one ready to shine.

But from the sound of it, this guy knew the skiff was there? What kinda idiot? A drunken idiot.

A few things:

That kinda horsepower doesn't belong on this lake. It's big enough that I can understand wanting to go out and stretch the legs, but com'on! A re-assessment of horsepower limits on these smaller Maine lakes is in order.

Two, the man was impaired and was an idiot. You can regulate the former, but not the latter. A stiffer penalty for such willful negligence, which kills two people, seems in order.

[Tom Galyen]

To MMD,
How about this for an argument. You used a gun analogy in your posting so I'll continue with it. Even with the second Amendment in place it is still illegal in any state to own or use a fully automatic 30 caliber machine gun without a federal license and a ton of state and local papers. No one really argues this point because there is no real reason for a 'Joe the Plumber' type of person to own or use such a weapon. Besides it is just plain dangerous without proper training and a proper place to safely use it.

To go a little farther but yet closer to the boating scene, no one can legally use a formula one racing vehicle in downtown Chicago, New York or Los Angeles. This is for the same reason as above, without proper training and a safe place to use it the vehicle would be just to unsafe at any speed.

Now you want me to believe that it is perfectly safe for an untrained, unsteady, person, who's only reason to have a boat that powerful is that he can afford it, to run it at top speed any time day or night on any body of water he can shoehorn it onto. I'm sorry I don't go along with that argument at all. The lake I sail and row on is about 6 miles long and about 1/2 mile wide at its widest. Yet there are a large number of extremely powerful boats that roar up and down the lake all summer. Two of them are 40+ foot cigarette boat with 4 engines on them easily capable of 60+MPH which they like to do. Like Chris Coose stated in his post the cigarette boats were mostly missing last summer, but not completely.

We also had a case two summers ago that was identical to the Maine incident except the boat that was almost cut in half was a pontoon boat. 5 retired gentlemen were on board for their normal mid-week evening fishing event when a totally drunk, uncaring bohunk in a large go-fast boat T-Boned them. He then ran and when caught by the police was trying to load his damaged boat onto his trailer, but was to drunk to do it as were his "guests". He to will spend a short time in jail. 20 years would be much better.

Tom G. (Seaweed)

[pila]

Call the vigilante committee. All those convictions and he gets a 3.5 year slap on the wrist.

[Ben Fuller]

Lets hope that this provides precedent for the Massachusetts prosecutors working on the Buzzards Bay collision.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/08/14/man_to_be_charged_in_fatal_boat_collision_in_mass/

http://www.bristolda.com/DA/pressreleases/bevins%20charged.pdf is the official press release. October soundings indicates the perp had his head down entering a way point in his GPS. CG has charged him with lots of technical stuff as well like failing to keep a lookout. There will also be a civil suit.

The IF & W seem to be pleased that at least the man got 3 plus years with 5 possible. It also seems likely that all of the gents financial assets will get stripped in a civil suit.

[Ed Harrow]

...It also seems likely that all of the gents financial assets will get stripped in a civil suit.

Which, according to the local paper some time ago, he's been busy unloading to family members.

Anybody got a grenade launcher they can sell me...

[watson1990]

However,,,
Mass. has a new 5 year "look back window" . It used to be that they [the courts ] could look back 3 years at any transaction you made and have it reversed . Yup ! simply ,you must undo it .you give back the property and if he received any money ,he must give back the money ...recently [a year and a half ago ] changed to a 5 year 'Look Back window ' .
So he is still just as screwed as we all hoped he would be.
People like this think they are so smart but there is always someone [specially in mass. government] who is smarter ...Every now and again there is justice ,albeit ,all to infrequently ..this guy won't be any trouble anymore ....
There is a God ! [I know there are some here who would argue with that but thats okay ,,,go ahead ,,,I am right and you are wrong !
Watson

[LakeErieSailor]

Sorry, people.

I thought Mainers had more gumption than to let this guy off.

There are countries where he would be executed. Too bad we're not one of them.

[watson1990]

HI,
While you are not wrong to think that Mainers have more Gumption ,its not the residents that caused this injustice...it is the a$$h@@le Judges that do it ..Judges should have to be voted in and every 2 or 4 years be re elected. They are ,EVRYONE OF THEM a bunch of overprotected cowards.
I'd like to interupt a trial where a man was just released on Rape charges by the judge and break into the room and yell"quick,your honor,,your wife was just raped by a man and your daughter was killed in the incident,,,then we might see a little justice,,,but until it hits home with these pansies ,we will never get justice . The judges ,every effing one of them ,is just a sally ,,,a sheila ,,,a pansy with no b@ll$ and zero understanding of the real dog eat dog world
WATSON !!!

[BETTY-B]

Does Maine consider boats to be dangerous weapons then? Only over a certain horsepower maybe? I dont get that charge.

[watson1990]

the horsepower did not lead to the charge of manslaughter. only his actions did.driving while not under control at a high spped and under the influnce.It was the boats ability to go so fast that allowed someone under the influence to act SO recklessly. it wasn't the boats fault ,only the operators fault for using such a huge pewerfull machine in such a small confined space ,late at night and under the influence that brought about the Deaths of two innocent people sitting in a very small boat watching the moon and stars ...and along comes some idiot without any thought or concern to the safety of others ,with a young lady who was not his wife [read in here what you want to ] very late at night and he killed the two people in the small boat due to his negligence...Period...looks like he won't do that again ..he can kiss life as he knows it good bye ...it will never be the same ,,,just as it will never be the same for the parents or the sons and the daughters of the two dead people..these people will have to live the rest of their lives without there loved ones...he ,on the otherhand will be out in 3.5 years,,probably more like 1 year the way the courts operate in this country,,the courts are a joke unless you steal a loaf of bread to feed your hungry family ,,,then they get really strict,,,should be a bounty on Judges !
Watson

[BETTY-B]

I'm not interested in your emotional view of this case, Watson. This is what I was asking about. Anyone know what this means:

"but the jury was deadlocked and returned no verdict on the charges of manslaughter and reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon."

DAN

[donald branscom]

I would just love to know the name of that boat with the two 425HP engines.

This is gonna be good. Right?

No don't tell me.....dangerous weapon-right/ Did i get it?

[mmd]

Chris Coose: Certainly; I’d look forward to meeting Uncle Bobby. Would he enjoy a pint or two of Keith’s or Propeller beer?

Rbgarr: I agree with your analogy-extension, and I think that you have alluded to the same solution that I attempted to suggest. In a nutshell, progressive licensing, restrictions on areas of use, and mandatory training. You know – a nanny-state solution. Yes, I know it won’t eliminate assholes and accidents, but I am quite certain that at least the accidents will become fewer.

Tom Gaylen: You have misinterpreted my previous posting; in no way am I advocating that ”…an untrained, unsteady, person, who's only reason to have a boat that powerful is that he can afford it, to run it at top speed any time day or night on any body of water he can shoehorn it onto.” Quite the opposite, in fact – please refer to the paragraph above. I also think that the same type of progressive licensing and mandatory training should apply to performance cars, motorcycles and weapons (with some outright bans on this last one). For the most part I don’t believe that ownership should be denied by the state, but that the state should impose a necessary minimum of appropriate training & experience, and that the state reserves the right to dictate where the items can and can’t be used.

Betty-B: I was puzzled by the charge of ”reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon” too. Up here in my neck of the woods it would have likely been a charge of “vehicular manslaughter”, a term that implies death caused by the willful and imprudent use of a vehicle causing death. Is there a similar charge in US law?

[Tylerdurden]

We have a relative who built a camp on this lake in the 60's, this particular boat was a noise nusiance in the extreme.

I was in Casco Bay one early morning and I could hear one of these guys coming on from a ways out. He ran within 50' of me with plenty of open water all around. I could hear him for at least another 2 miles ahead.
Last summer was quiet all around due I guess to fuel cost.

What do you suppose it takes per hour to wake up everybody on shore with your 850 hp.?


Wasn't a red Boat was it? That clown terrorized the East Prom all summer. Luckily there was only one other but the jet skis where pretty bad ripping through.

[Greg Nolan]

mmd --

"High-horsepower boats don't kill people, people kill people!"

Certainly you are aware that the “guns don’t kill peope, people kill people” is a stupid, mindless chant used by people who oppose any virtually regulation of guns and virtually any limitation on their ownership. Using your analogous statement makes you look similarly thoughtless.

A number of factors make such simplistic statements bogus. Murphy’s law is one; the fact that we live in a crowded world is another, and the fact that there are stupid people with no judgment who lack any sense of responsibility is another.

Society (the “state” if you will) has not only the right to protect itself by limiting what people are allowed to do and to own – we have the obligation to do so. Note that I changed “society” and “state” to “we.” And we are allowed – and have the obligation – to protect ourselves from guns, and bombs, and overpowered boats, and normally powered cars, and all sorts of things that do kill people because “sh*t happens.” – another version of Murphy’s Law.

Even good, skilled people with good intentions make mistakes; even well maintained equipment fails; even attentive people can be distracted. That’s when guns can kill people, and overpowered boats can kill people. The danger that a car, gun, boat will kill someone is even higher when falling into the hads of irresponsible people who do not appreciate the potential danger posed by their activity. When the danger is high and the benefit low, regulation is appropriate, and regulation can, and sometimes should, include a ban on use or ownership.

It would be perfectly rational to ban 850 hp boats on any freshwater body of water in Maine (or Nova Scotia) – which would effectively be a ban on ownership. The benefit to the one user comes at too high a cost to all the others who are forced to bear the cost of one person's entertainment - the risk of noise, injury, and death. We are not required to wait for disaster and then react; we are allowed to take affirmative steps to protect ourselves -- we can lock the barn door before the horse is taken; we can take preventative steps in the face of obvious danger, and an 850 hp boat on Long Lake (or any other lake in Maine) is an obvious danger.

The law recognizes "inherently dangerous" products and activities and requires that appropriate steps be taken to prevent harm. I expect that in a civil action against the operator of the 850 hp boat, that notion will come into play when assessing damages. But that notion can come into play when considering regulatory steps, and it should come into play more often than it does in our crowded world. In the unpeopled Shangri-La of Nova Scotia, it is perhaps not evident how crowded our world has become, even in the lakes of southern Maine, which are no longer the havens from cities and crowds that they, once upon a time long ago, were.

The mind-set of the open frontier which allowed, and even encouraged, people to do what they want with no restrictions, is no longer an appropriate mind-set in our increasingly overpopulated modern world. There are few, if any, places so unpopulated that someone can act without restriction, or keep and operate dangerous equipment with impunity.

Mindless slogans that are fallacious because of their simplicity are not helpful.

[BETTY-B]

mmd --

"High-horsepower boats don't kill people, people kill people!"

Certainly you are aware that the “guns don’t kill peope, people kill people” is a stupid, mindless chant used by people who oppose any virtually regulation of guns and virtually any limitation on their ownership. Using your analogous statement makes you look similarly thoughtless.

A number of factors make such simplistic statements bogus. Murphy’s law is one; the fact that we live in a crowded world is another, and the fact that there are stupid people with no judgment who lack any sense of responsibility is another.

Society (the “state” if you will) has not only the right to protect itself by limiting what people are allowed to do and to own – we have the obligation to do so. Note that I changed “society” and “state” to “we.” And we are allowed – and have the obligation – to protect ourselves from guns, and bombs, and overpowered boats, and normally powered cars, and all sorts of things that do kill people because “sh*t happens.” – another version of Murphy’s Law.

Even good, skilled people with good intentions make mistakes; even well maintained equipment fails; even attentive people can be distracted. That’s when guns can kill people, and overpowered boats can kill people. The danger that a car, gun, boat will kill someone is even higher when falling into the hads of irresponsible people who do not appreciate the potential danger posed by their activity. When the danger is high and the benefit low, regulation is appropriate, and regulation can, and sometimes should, include a ban on use or ownership.

It would be perfectly rational to ban 850 hp boats on any freshwater body of water in Maine (or Nova Scotia) – which would effectively be a ban on ownership. The benefit to the one user comes at too high a cost to all the others who are forced to bear the cost of one person's entertainment - the risk of noise, injury, and death. We are not required to wait for disaster and then react; we are allowed to take affirmative steps to protect ourselves -- we can lock the barn door before the horse is taken; we can take preventative steps in the face of obvious danger, and an 850 hp boat on Long Lake (or any other lake in Maine) is an obvious danger.

The law recognizes "inherently dangerous" products and activities and requires that appropriate steps be taken to prevent harm. I expect that in a civil action against the operator of the 850 hp boat, that notion will come into play when assessing damages. But that notion can come into play when considering regulatory steps, and it should come into play more often than it does in our crowded world. In the unpeopled Shangri-La of Nova Scotia, it is perhaps not evident how crowded our world has become, even in the lakes of southern Maine, which are no longer the havens from cities and crowds that they, once upon a time long ago, were.

The mind-set of the open frontier which allowed, and even encouraged, people to do what they want with no restrictions, is no longer an appropriate mind-set in our increasingly overpopulated modern world. There are few, if any, places so unpopulated that someone can act without restriction, or keep and operate dangerous equipment with impunity.

Mindless slogans that are fallacious because of their simplicity are not helpful.

Are you saying there is a law that says high-powered boats are illegal there? Where did you get that it was over powered too?

[mmd]

Greg Nolan: Apparently you, in similar manner as Tom Gaylen, mistook my attempt at irony as a factual statement of position; it is not. Please read my response to rbgarr in post #36 for a - hopefully - clearer explanation of my position.

[Greg Nolan]

mmd

I did see your response in post # 36, and found it difficult to reconcile with the earlier "guns don't kill people" post. I guess the irony was lost on me because that statement is almost always trotted out in all seriousness and in all stupidity -- and there are one or two people on this thread who apparently can't see that overpowered boats don't belong in some places and that because there are irresponsible people who have not clue, regulation is often, perhaps regrettably, the only answer, if a not always a perfect or effective. I have generally enjoyed your intelligent and informative posts, and am glad to find that I had misunderstood your earlier post.

Being myself in the business of government regulation, I am well aware that regulations generally offend someone, and are sometime more restrictive than might be necessary -- sometimes to a great degree. Where to draw the line between what to allow and what to limit is often difficult even among people who are in agreement over the need to regulate something. And if the regulatory line is drawn in the wrong place, I know that the the political or judicial processes for correcting the problem can be lengthy and frustrating. But I have little sympathy for the "rugged individualists" who insist that the government has no business ever in telling people what to do -- in large part, that is exactly the business of government, and the "guns don't kill people" is usually a line usually trotted out by asocial people who have little understanding of our responsibility to and for each other.

I apologize for my misunderstanding, and hope to continue enjoying your contributions to the forum.

[watson1990]

Betty B,
I understand your question. I do not give a damn if you are interested in my emotional view here.I am allowed to voice my opinion if i wish . My posts all start out "Watson 1990 " ...when you see that ,,you just skip over it to the next post ,,,kinda like changing chanels if you don't like whats on your television .Duh !

A carrot can be a dangerous weapon !!
Please correct me if I am wrong but the tone that I read in your posts and your questions seems to infer that there may be a way of looking at this tragedy as something less than what it is; an idiot with more money than brains drives drunk and kills two people..end of story.
Your quetions make me think that you are looking for a way around this by using very specific words and trying to give more than one definition to those words.. Not this time .
THE DRUNK IDIOT KILLED TWO PEOPLE !!! off to jail .do not pass go !

[Greg Nolan]

Betty-B

I am saying that engaging in activity that is dangerous to others without taking proper precautions to protect others will leave you liable for the harm you cause others. I am saying that some activity is so dangerous that, while it might be safe enough with proper precautions, should not be undertaken in other, given circumstances.

So -- operating a high-powered boat at full throttle, while perhaps safe on the open ocean or as part of a race where other participants have accepted the risks, is not something that should be undertaken on a narrow lake heavily used by small recreational boaters, in the dark, and especially while intoxicated and perhaps otherwise distracted.

I am saying that if someone choses to engage in such dangerous activity, he should be liable for any damages incurred. Of course, it is impossible to fully compensate anyone for killing them "accidentally," but nonetheless, compensation should be paid to the estate of the dead person (the wife, children, or other survivors of the dead person who no longer can be financially supported by that dead person and who can no longer have the love, care, and concern of that dead person).

Operating an 850 hp horsepower boat in the dark on a narrow crowded lake while drunk in such a way as to kill two people may not be criminally illegal, but it certainly should give rise to legal liability for the harm incurred.

Further, given the danger of the activity, we -- society, the state, the other users of the lake -- have the power, and indeed the responsibility to see that liability is imposed on careless, irresponsible people -- after the fact of harm if needs be, but preferably before harm occurs, when practical.

As to "overpowered" -- it is my judgment that a pleasure boat of 30 feet, give or take a few feet, with 850 hp, give or take a few hp, is overpowered for Long Lake -- a lake something in excess of 20 miles long, but only, giver or take a bit, a half mile wide, that is heavily used by swimmers, canoes, rowboats, fishermen, pontoon boats, water-skiers, and the like, with many summer camps on the shore occupied by people who have a right to feel and be safe in the water and be free from obnoxious, loud, unnecessary noise. Many others who have contributed to this thread seem to share a similar judgment.

From your posts in this thread, you seem to be someone who has difficulty with the idea that one's actions can have negative impact on others, and that society (those others) have the right to minimize your opportunity to wreak havoc. But perhaps I am wrong, and with your questions, you are just playing devil's advocate? Or are you simply unaware, not only of legal practice, theory, and vocabulary, but of the demands that courtesy, safety, and the common weal place upon all of us ("we, the people of these United States") who, forced by necessity, must live and recreate in the company of our fellow men?

I do not choose to stay in a hut in the woods distant from all company (although I do choose to spend a substantial part of my time in one of the more remote parts of one of the less populated states of this country), and neither did the two people killed by the 850 hp boat and its operator. If people wish to live without regard for the concerns and safety of others, a hut in the distant woods is where they belong, far from where their incivility and desire for "independence" may not harm their fellow citizens.

I think that I am well off living far across the continent from someone who does not understand what 850 hp has to do with the Long Lake situation, because if you do not understand that, I am not sure what other issue of common sense, courtesy, and safety you might not understand, and so I do not believe I would care to operate a boat on the same water that you might use.

[emichaels]

On the intoxication manslaughter charges the jury probably got hung up on the fact that alcohol is a legal substance, not withstanding the BAC level. Many people drink and drive so this act can cause jurys to have trouble finding fault in a defendent for actions they too are frequently guilty. Would have been money in the bank for the "state" had the drug of choice been coke.

The lookback provision will ensure he is financially wiped out for a very long time.

The other big problem is that, as a society, we want to do what we want to do whenever and wherever we please, with no regard for others enjoyment of life and safety. Its really all comes back to personal responsibilty, which is not a strong component of Americas "Me First Society".

Eric

[Vinny&Shawn]

Death is final,and the dead can't speak,an inexcusable tragedy has accured,it is good that justice has done it's work!

[htom]

...
Betty-B: I was puzzled by the charge of ”reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon” too. Up here in my neck of the woods it would have likely been a charge of “vehicular manslaughter”, a term that implies death caused by the willful and imprudent use of a vehicle causing death. Is there a similar charge in US law?

It varies by state. In some states deaths from (and I'm not even sure about my own, Minnesota) only autos, or only autos and motorcycles, or only autos, motorcycles, and ATV, can be so charged; other vehicles (bicycles, boats, jet skeet, canoes, ... airplanes, roller skates) can not. I am not going to claim it makes any sense. Usually these laws were written long ago, before there were such vehicles, and the laws, if they have been extended, may not have ever been used for such, and so a prosecutor may be reluctant to be the "first case", lest he set some bad precedent.

[BETTY-B]

Boy o' boy do we have some foggy glasses here.

Watson, you seemed to be trying to answer my simple question with an emotional response. I was looking for critical thinking and answers from something other than a crybaby with a pitchfork.

Greg Nolan, I'm pretty sure the boat has the power it was designed for. Show me where it is illegal to have that amount of horsepower in that boat on that exact lake. Sure I'm playing devils advocate a bit. I'm also trying to look at it exactly the way our laws work. You guys want this guy to do anywhere from twenty years to the death penalty. Saying you are involved in regulations and such, you of all people should know you cant charge someone for a crime that doesnt exist yet. What can this guy be charged with and why? In Washington I'm sure a manslaughter charge would have been the way. I dont know the laws in a state "a continent away".

DAN

[ishmael]

Hm. A few different issues. If the guy had handled the boat responsibly none of this would be an issue. I don't really care if he was cocked. Some of the best small power boat handlers I've known were half-cocked all their lives. That, in and of itself, does not mishandling make. Mistakes of judgment at times, but not this sort of gross error.

How big is the lake, what a half mile wide by four? This guy is cocked, doesn't know what he's about, doesn't understand the power at his throttle. That's where it falls down, he did not understand the power at his fingertips. A completely avoidable accident, if the guy just understood.

[watson1990]

Its not illegal to have a boat with that much horsepower.It is illegal to have a boat and kill people with it. all we are saying is that the world is chock full of idiots and you are looking for a way to explain everything away.
You are probably the woman in the restaurant with the bratty children who won't shut up and ruin the evening for everyone else .
" Now Jeremy, please don't do that ,,,thats not nice . And Tabitha please don't throw your potatos at that nice man ..I asked you nicely ,now please sit down and put the jello back in the dish ..
Emotional ..you bet your ass i am emotional ...two people died and you are looking for ways to defend him ...I DARE you to buy a plane ticket and fly out here and try to tell their orphaned children that it will be alright !
He KILLED two nice people ..there is NO way to make that better...no matter how much you wing nuts think you can
I am out of this one ..nearly everyone here has their head screwed on straight ...except this fruitloop ! Go troll on Oprahs web site idiot

[BETTY-B]

Its not illegal to have a boat with that much horsepower.It is illegal to have a boat and kill people with it. all we are saying is that the world is chock full of idiots and you are looking for a way to explain everything away.
You are probably the woman in the restaurant with the bratty children who won't shut up and ruin the evening for everyone else .
" Now Jeremy, please don't do that ,,,thats not nice . And Tabitha please don't throw your potatos at that nice man ..I asked you nicely ,now please sit down and put the jello back in the dish ..
Emotional ..you bet your ass i am emotional ...two people died and you are looking for ways to defend him ...I DARE you to buy a plane ticket and fly out here and try to tell their orphaned children that it will be alright !
He KILLED two nice people ..there is NO way to make that better...no matter how much you wing nuts think you can
I am out of this one ..nearly everyone here has their head screwed on straight ...except this fruitloop ! Go troll on Oprahs web site idiot

Where have I said I'm defending him Watson? If this is only an emotional lynch mob thread, then perhaps I am looking for answers in the wrong place. But if it is also a discussion on a particular case where we all agree the guy was an asshole with no right to run over two people, then I would like to know what the possible charges/punishments for this guy are. Focus, Watson....

DAN
A.K.A. "the woman in the restaurant with the bratty children who won't shut up and ruin the evening for everyone else "

[Wayne Jeffers]

In this part of Ohio, all the lakes have horsepower limits. Electric motors only, 6 hp, 10 hp, 299 hp at the ones that come to mind immediately.

Horsepower limits seem appropriate for all our inland lakes, the Great Lakes and certain large commercial boats excepted.

Wayne

[Ed Harrow]

Where have I said I'm defending him Watson? If this is only an emotional lynch mob thread, then perhaps I am looking for answers in the wrong place. But if it is also a discussion on a particular case where we all agree the guy was an asshole with no right to run over two people, then I would like to know what the possible charges/punishments for this guy are. Focus, Watson....

DAN
A.K.A. "the woman in the restaurant with the bratty children who won't shut up and ruin the evening for everyone else "

You might say, "It's elementary, my dear Watson." ;)

[Greg Nolan]

Betty-B

You need to learn to read and write more care (or perhaps with some intelligence).

Nowhere did I say that the boat was not designed for 850 hp.

I said that, in my judgment, it was overpowered for Long Lake because, in my judgment, it would be virtually impossible to operate a boat of such power -- well engineered or not -- at full throttle under the conditions that can be expected to obtain on that lake, with which I have some personal familiarity.

Nowhere did I say that what was done was criminal. But a jury did convict on one of the criminal charges. I do not practice criminal law, and I do not practice law at all in Maine, and have not expressed any opinion about whether operating a boat can properly be characterized as using a dangerous weapon in Maine. I do presume that the prosecutors who tried the case believed that the charge was appropriate, and I presume that if the charge was not appropriate, it would have been dismissed prior to the trial -- a trial at which a jury found him not guilty of the dangerous weapon charge. I did not express my opinion of the jury's findings.

I did say that I thought that a drunk operating a boat in such a way that it killed two people (and who has been found guilty on a criminal charge of operating the boat while drunk) should bear some liability for those deaths, and I will be surprised if a jury in a civil proceeding does not find him so liable.

I also expressed my opinion that I believe that there should be legal strictures against operating such a powerful boat on a lake such as Long Lake. And I think that criminal liability would be appropriate when violation of the stricture resulted in serious injury or death.

Nowhere did I suggest that this person be charged with a crime not on the books, or have I suggested that any particular civil or criminal penalty would be appropriate in this matter.

Neither did I say or suggest that simple ownership of an 850 hp boat was illegal or immoral. Indeed, I did say that high speed and great power can be fun in the right place.

I have been quite clear and direct in expressing my thoughts and opinions.

Your first post -- "I'm not clear what 850 horsepower has to do with any of this..." -- was not directed specifically to the question of what constitutes a dangerous weapon in Maine, but rather expressed puzzlement at what the 850 hp had to do with "any of this." If you really wanted to know about boats being dangerous weapons in Maine, you could and should have asked that question. Instead you made a vague and inane statement that, on a fair reading, showed considerable stupidity. Perhaps you are not so stupid -- perhaps you just need to learn to write clearly. I will not give my opinion as to which of those two options is correct. But whether your inability to read intelligently, or to ask a clear and cogent question, or to make an accurate statement about what has been written -- whether those arise from stupidity or from literary incompetence, I will express the opinion that no one should pay much attention to what you have to say, because you don't understand what you read and you express yourself so poorly.

Of course, I may have misunderstood where you are coming from -- it may be that you deliberately ask vague questions so that you can claim others misunderstand you, and it may be further that you deliberately distort the words of others so that you can seem superior as you trump arguments that have not been made. Again, I will not express my opinion as to whether this is the situation, because it doesn't really matter.

Stupid? Incompetent? Intellectually corrupt and weasly? Does it really matter? Do you really matter?

[Ian McColgin]

I’m prone to casual reading myself but, if aiming ad hominem sexist remarks, I’d at least make an effort . . . Ah well. Reasonable efforts to look at the legal issues take a distant second to an emotional lynch mentality.

Which is to say, lest I be misunderstood, the laws about reckless operation of almost anything - guns, boats, autos, or whatever - don’t always lead to satisfactory judicial decisions. I just cannot agree that seeking clarification of the legal grounds for the perhaps puzzling verdict is “Stupid? Incompetent? Intellectually corrupt and weasly [sic] ?”

Maine is the state that failed to convict a homicidal hunter because he claimed that a housewife hanging laundry in her back yard looked like a deer in the woods. So it really does make sense to understand what the laws actually say and what information formed the basis for the decision. Emotionally 850 HP has some impact. Physically on the dead victims horsepower may have impact. Has that legal impact? Fair question.

[BETTY-B]

Mr. Greg Nolan,

My first post was hardly inane. I could see quickily what street the lynch mob was going down. It was a deliberate comment to try and get people like you to see the case clearly before you all went off down the street making fools of yourselves in a feigning emotional wreck. Of which does nothing for figuring out exactly what has happened legally or what can be changed for future instances. Seeing this case clearly and intelligently, from an interested legal perspective, just isnt going to happen with the likes of you.

I'd still like to know what 850HP has to do with it though.

Thanks for the kind words. Froth on...

DAN

[ishmael]

Hey, let's not compound the tragedy with our own little train wreck.

A few things:

The pony was too big for the paddock. These little lakes don't support that kind of power.

The operator was negligent/incompetent/drunk. Take your pick. A bad combination.

The penalty wasn't stiff enough, seems to me, but that's how the law reads.

When anchored at night, fishing or stargazing, no matter where you are, have a good light, either on or at the ready.

----------------------------------

Who really knows what happened that night? I hope this guy's time in the hoosegow gives him time to reflect.

[Greg Nolan]

Ian McColgin --

First -- a question about the scope of Maine's law would certainly have been a fair question, but Betty-B did not ask such a question in his first post. Indeed, he did not ask a question at all. I think my first response did address the issue raised -- what 850 hp has to do with "any of this." Except to give my opinion that the activity in question was "criminal" (and a jury did agree about this), I did not address legal issues as such, but rather the issues of judgment, lack of attention, and inappropriateness -- issues that exist over and beyond any issue of law, although they are relevant to the law. I think my post was quite responsive to Betty-B's statement.

I do think people have a responsibility for being clear about what they are saying or asking (sometimes, although not here, even a legal responsibility). And in context of the thread up to that point, it did seem to me that Betty-B's broad statement -- it was not a question -- was deliberately intended to provoke rather than an serious effort to obtain information about a point of law.

Of course, I could be wrong -- Betty-B could just be . . . but let's not go there again.

Second -- I gave Betty-B no basis either for lumping me in with "guys [who] want this guy to do anywhere from twenty years to the death penalty" or of suggesting that I think it ok to "charge someone with a crime that does not exist yet," or for his more invidious comments in his last post. I have not given any opinion abut the soundness of the jury verdict, nor have I commented on the penalty imposed, and I will not, except to say that Betty-B's mistaken assumptions about my opinions are wildly incorrect. I didn't think he was interested in the jury verdict or the penalty imposed, since he didn't say or ask anything about them. I have indicated that a civil action would likely result in an award of damages, and have indicated my opinion that such an award would be appropriate. I have given him no basis for thinking that I am or would be part of a lynch mob or that I wished the death penalty or long imprisonment.

Further, I think it fair to characterize Betty-B's post # 47 as a distortion of what I said and of my opinions -- and frankly, it is hard not to think the distortions deliberate, especially after his last post which, I think, tends to confirm my suggestion that he is someone who deliberately distorts in order to create a straw man that he can attack from a stance of phony rectitude.

Now, in an effort to be helpful in the event that Betty-B or anyone else is actually interested in the law of dangerous weapons in Maine, I suggest googling "dangerous weapon" and "dangerous weapon Maine." The first search will lead to a couple of general definitions, and the second search, if pursued, will lead to a 2006 decision by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in the case State of Maine v. David York, in which the notion of reckless conduct with the use of a dangerous weapon (a van), is discussed. He will find from that case that reckless conduct, a class C felony, "occurs when a person 'recklessly creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person.' 17-A M.R.S. § 211(1)."

Further from that case: “'Use of a dangerous weapon' is defined as 'the use of a firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which, in the manner it is used or threatened to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.' 17-A M.R.S. § 2(9)(A) (2005)."


The above is obviously not an exhaustive treatment of the topic, and indeed, nobody should rely on it in taking a legal position. There are undoubtedly several other judicial decisions that have glossed and commented upon the applicable statutes. The information presented here, and more, is readily available to anyone with a computer and can be found in less than 5 minutes -- if someone were actually interested in the subject.

Now, that all said, I will plead guilty to perhaps being a bit intemperate in my language -- but like most, I do not like being insulted. Betty-B is pretty touchy (see post # 50) about how his statements are reported -- I am also. If he doesn't like intemperate responses, he should exercise the same care with his writing that he expects of watson 1990 and others.

[Mike Field]

.
I have to say I agree with entirely with the position stated in Greg's post at #38. Society does have the right to protect itself inter alia from idiots with high-powered speedboats. (I won't even start discussing the US' ludicrous gun laws.)

I note that the Lake District National Park Authority in the UK imposed a 10 kn speed limit on Windermere in 2005, because of a tripling in the number of "fast power boats" on the lake between 1977 and 1991. (Goodness knows how many more there were by the time the new speed limit came into effect.) The Authority explicitly did not limit the power of any vessels, but the speed at which they could be used. The effect has been that most idiots like the one under discussion here no longer bother taking their penis-boats to Windermere at all.

And the best o' British luck to them....
.

[BETTY-B]

Mr. Nolan,

I believe it's possible to show detail with few words. You apparently think the more words the better. Muddy water ya might say.

But seriously, I trust those who tout their morals the loudest, the least. Stuff about nineteen year old girls and such shows you must be morally superior, huh?

Maine legal stuff and info:

A horspower limit on Long Lake? (http://www.sunjournal.com/story/235227-3/MaineNews/Limits_sought_on_boat_power/)

Mr. Nolans case with the van. (http://www.courts.state.me.us/court_info/opinions/2006_documents%20/06me65yo.pdf) The only one like it that I could find. Which, incidentally, was really used as a weapon. He actually was trying to do harm to another human with the thing. That makes sense to me. Unlike a hammered guy with extremely poor judgement.

Still, I cant find what constitutes a dangerous weapon in Maine. And there sure isnt much out there yet on this case. Why wasnt a guilty verdict possible on the manslaughter at least? The guy had 850 HP in that thing for crying out loud! If only I didnt loan out my pitchfork I'd be there on his dock!

DAN

[Ian McColgin]

The rules as to what consititues a dangerous weapon vary from state to state but besides items that are explicitly weapons - fire arms, swords, brass knuckles etc - almost anything can be a dangerous weapon depending on intent and actual use.

For example, one often sees in the local paper's police log a charge of "assault with a dangerous weapon, a shod foot." The perp did not take his shoes off before kicking whomever.

In automobile cases, the car becomes a dangerous weapon if it can be shown that the perp aimed. Otherwise, its vehicular homocide or whatever.

Something like that appears to have obtained in the present case. The guy was somewhere south of negligent, but whatever else he appears to have been not aiming. So, perhaps that overpowered phallic symbol was not a dangerous weapon, just a dangerous thing.

[Canoeyawl]

I was driving down Main st. one afternoon and the car in front of me objected to my following too closely. He reached out the window and saluted me then slammed on his brakes…Hard.
Unbeknownst to him there was a motorcycle cop behind me.
The cop promptly pulled him over, called for back up and the driver went directly to jail. The charge was - Assault with a deadly weapon.

[BETTY-B]

Greg Nolans one and only example clearly shows how that can work. I dont see how this guy had any malice or whatever it would take to get a deadly weapon charge though. There was an example of vehicle homicide provided earlier, but that charge was never brought anyway.

The one charge of manslaughter seemed appropriate. Yet it didnt stick. Maybe they were trying to get a voluntary manslaughter charge and it just wasnt the correct charge for this case. Without any of the court details available yet, we can only speculate. Or talk about nineteen year old girls or whatever...

I can only wonder what insults Mr. Greg Nolan is now going to throw my way. Perhaps his own advise, on a completely seperate issue in another forum, would cause him to re-think some of his words before they come spilling out his ever leaking neck:

"Finally, I personally would be leery of using the internet or any form of writing when discussing another's reputation -- I would prefer face-to-face or telephone." Greg Nolan (http://forums.wcha.org/showthread.php?p=19758#post19758)

DAN

[Cedric Rhyn]

On a similar subject, anyone know what is happening/happened in the Clear Lake case where a drunk deputy ran over a yacht at night killing one crew and the skipper of the yacht got charged for causing the death?

Cedric Rhyn

[rbgarr]

Being myself in the business of government regulation....

Isn't the issue primarily one of enforcement of whatever regulations may be or are proposed and the consequences of violating them? The guy on Long Lake suffered consequences this time but it doesn't sound like they had been enforced sufficiently before (his previous violations of other laws) or that the consequences were severe enough. The political will to pay for enforcement and consequences is the sticking point. The payment is financial by levying taxes/imprisoning people or in popularity through legislators proposing unpopular laws. We don't seem to really value following through on these things to the point that it causes inconvenience to all in society or, in this case, those who use the lake.

If lake users/property owners were to pay a fee that would support signage, fee takers at landings, several marine patrol craft with armed and empowered officials, I wonder how far it would get? There's a large, popular, convenient lake outside of another Maine town that has a five mile an hour speed limit whenever a boat is within 150 feet of the shoreline. That's actually most of the lake but not everyone is good at assessing distances. I've had friends stopped and fined pretty heavily. They accept the need for the law... but still aren't crazy about it and have reduced their use of the lake, going elsewhere.

[Greg Nolan]

Hey Betty-B -- why delete your "frijoles negros" message? I thought it was kind of cute.

Let's see now -- when you have the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine quoting the statutory definition of a dangerous weapon, you can't FIND what constitutes a dangerous weapon in Maine? Maybe you didn't read all of Maine v. York? Or maybe you just don't like the definition? Or maybe . . ..

Let's see again -- the enhancement charge was "RECKLESS conduct with a dangerous weapon." It was not a primary charge, and it was not a primary charge of something like (intentional) assault with a deadly weapon. Is it your belief that if I kill two people with a rock, fireplace poker, hammer, van, boat, or gun, I have to really, really mean to kill them before I can face a charge involving conduct with a dangerous weapon, but that if I am "a hammered guy with extremely poor judgment" I get a free pass on such a charge? Maybe you don't think there should ever be any penalty for recklessnes. Or maybe you just don't think that "a hammered guy with extremely poor judgment driving a powerful boat at high speed at night" creates an appropriate situation for a charge that he is "reckless" or "creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person." 17-A M.R.S. § 211(1). Your terse writing doesn't make your position very clear.

Intent is not an element of recklessness -- indeed, it is inconsistent with recklessness, a point made in cases cited by Maine v. David. To think that Maine v. David limits penalties for use of dangerous weapons to intentional use would be a serious misreading of that case. And I guess it's just too bad that Maine doesn't have enough reported cases for you on the subject -- I suppose it must not come up that often, which is probably fine with the people of Maine.

As to your stale year-old article on a horspower [sic] limit on Long Lake -- are you surprised that some politicians stupidly over-react and propose dumb legislation? Some people would say that its part of a politician's job. But do you know if even one of the bills mentioned in the article either passed the Legislative Council or was enacted by the full Legislature? I don't believe any has been (though I could be wrong). I don't see what old, failed, dumb legislative proposals have to do with any of this.

In my opinion, as I wrote before, the presence of a 19 year old female companion not his wife in that situation indicates that he may not have been paying as much attention as he should have to where he was going with the boat. Don't you think he might have been distracted? Don't you think that might be relevant? But except as such distraction might have contributed to the reckless killing of two people, the morality of his relationships with women is largely between him, the women, and his god (if he has one), as far as I am concerned.

And certainly a guilty verdict was possible on the manslaughter charge -- but the jury didn't return one. Why? Maybe the jury was a flock of bleeding heart liberals who think an alcoholic can't be liable for hurting people when drunk. Or maybe it was a herd of stone-ax conservatives who think the state has no business telling anyone what to do. Maybe there was one juror with extremely bad judgment who regularly gets hammered who hung the jury out of sympathy for the defendant. Maybe the jury simply made a mistake -- jurors are human too. Or just maybe, the jury handed down the right verdict on the case as it was presented. I wasn't at the trial and I wasn't on the jury, so I don't really know. But the same jury also did not return a guilty verdict on the dangerous weapon charge that seems to bother you so much. Go figure.

And you just can't get away from that lynching thing, can you?

[Greg Nolan]

rbgarr --

You raise a number of important issues. Another is that there is often a gap between the criminal and any other applicable law -- often there is no other applicable law. In the Long Lake case, it seems that there was and is nothing that restricts the kind of boats that can operate on that lake, or their speed. Too bad, in my opinion, but other people like having no restrictions on their activity, and resent it when there are regulations and government officials (police, prosecutors, permit administrators, and the like).

And when citizens finally agree that regulation of something is appropriate or necessary, they often refuse to pay what is necessary, whether in fees or taxes, to support the regulatory effort, so even when there are good regulations, they are often honored only in the breech. And politicians, knowing that they have to satisfy those who are howling for blood, for satisfaction, for results, get away with proposing stupid legislation that they know won't pass, and don't bother to push for effective legislation or regulation because they know that they will be unable to raise taxes or impose fees.

And please, don't take this to mean that I think that raising taxes is the answer to everything, or even anything, or that I think all politicians are insincere or ineffective.

Governing is a difficult activity -- trying to balance budgets while passing laws that restrict anti-social behavior without unduly restricting the activity, that define what is unacceptable without being so definite and precise as leave out something that, in an unforseen circumstance, certainly should be included, that satisfy the moral instincts of freethinkers as well as biblical fundamentalists as well as non-christians as well as .... you get the idea, and I haven't mentioned the obvious hot button issues like abortion, gun control, 850 hp engines, assisted suicide, and the like.

And of course, when all is said and done, governmental regulation cannot prevent all evils, cannot cure all evil, or even punish all evils. And they certainly can't undo all evils.

[BETTY-B]

"Hey Betty-B -- why delete your "frijoles negros" message? I thought it was kind of cute."

It fullfiled it's purpose of bumping this now strange thread.

So, Mr. Greg Nolan, in order to try and enjoy all your insults and assumptions, I've attached a Palin voice to all your posts. Hillarious! Please continue.

DAN

[JimConlin]

The civil suit process begins. The miscreant is lucky that the incident was in Maine.
http://tinyurl.com/6mh6cs