Not Guilty

Very common down here unfortunately. We call them SROs. Standing room only.
 
Does over loading a boat make someone guilty of homicide or manslaughter if the passengers die? You would think so, but apparently not, especially if you hire a good enough lawyer. And reading some more about this case, the prosecution initially wanted to charge a few misdemeanors - only after two years, and a big media firestorm did they file felony charges. That usually doesn’t work, so probably not that surprising that the jury came back right away with not guilty.

I don’t know what is more disturbing, the picture of the boat after the wreck, or the links in the story to all of the other South Florida fatal boating incidents.
 
Last edited:
alk said:
Does over loading a boat make someone guilty of homicide or manslaughter if the passengers die? You would think so, but apparently not, especially if you hire a good enough lawyer. And reading some more about this case, the prosecution initially wanted to charge a few misdemeanors - only after two years, and a big media firestorm did they file felony charges. That usually doesn’t work, so probably not that surprising that the jury came back right away with not guilty.

I don’t know what is more disturbing, the picture of the boat after the wreck, or the links in the story to all of the other South Florida fatal boating incidents.
Click to expand...
Went back and looked at the pic of damaged boat. Looks like high speed impact. I'm guessing it happened at night?

Even in familiar waters I never cruised at night, not as much time for course correction when/if you get distracted..
 
IDK. While there is some bad judgement (overloaded boat, running at speed at night), it doesn't sound like a crime. He wasn't under the influence. The intervening wake was the issue that "caused" the crash. The jury deemed it an accident. I can't imagine living with that.
 
alk said:
Does over loading a boat make someone guilty of homicide or manslaughter if the passengers die? You would think so, but apparently not, especially if you hire a good enough lawyer. And reading some more about this case, the prosecution initially wanted to charge a few misdemeanors - only after two years, and a big media firestorm did they file felony charges. That usually doesn’t work, so probably not that surprising that the jury came back right away with not guilty.

I don’t know what is more disturbing, the picture of the boat after the wreck, or the links in the story to all of the other South Florida fatal boating incidents.
Click to expand...
So if I don't overload a boat and passengers die, I'm ok? The number of passengers needs to be the cause of the death. In this cases, even a handful of passengers, due to the wake, he still hits the marker.
 
Bruce Herrington said:
Went back and looked at the pic of damaged boat. Looks like high speed impact. I'm guessing it happened at night?

Even in familiar waters I never cruised at night, not as much time for course correction when/if you get distracted..
Click to expand...
Nope. Believe it or not it happened on a nice sunny afternoon.

The number of people on board such a small boat is negligent. Personally I don’t buy the wake excuse.

I very often operate at night which is perfectly safe if you take adequate precautions starting with preserving your night vision by dimming all lights and electronics. Equally Critical is maintaining a safe speed for the conditions.
 
Golfman25 said:
So if I don't overload a boat and passengers die, I'm ok? The number of passengers needs to be the cause of the death. In this cases, even a handful of passengers, due to the wake, he still hits the marker.
Click to expand...

“Ok” might be a stretch. You are liable in civil court, you may be guilty of some misdemeanors, and you get to live with the guilt of killing someone - but you aren’t guilty of homicide or manslaughter. Which I agree with ( at least based on my understanding of the incident). If the boat sunk because he overloaded it, and then people drowned, I think the prosecution could make a pretty compelling case that the recklessness of overloading the boat resulted in the deaths. But since hitting a marker has nothing to do with too many people on board, not sure why we are even talking about too many people on board?

My 23’ bowrider has a sticker that says I can carry ten people. Which is insane. ONE time I went out, 25 years ago, for a short ride with ten people on board. I’m sure everyone that saw us says we were way overloaded, and from a logical perspective we certainly were. Thankfully I didn’t whack any channel markers. I am having a hard time accepting that it would have been a murder conviction, with me likely still in jail, if I did.

No different than driving a car, at least it should not be. If you are diving down the road with too many people in your car, and slide off the road and wrap your car around a telephone pole - does it matter that you had too many people in your car? Maybe if two of them were riding on the roof it does - but the cause of the crash was you hitting the telephone pole, not that you had an extra person in the back seat.
 
Last edited:
PascalG said:
Nope. Believe it or not it happened on a nice sunny afternoon.

The number of people on board such a small boat is negligent. Personally I don’t buy the wake excuse.

I very often operate at night which is perfectly safe if you take adequate precautions starting with preserving your night vision by dimming all lights and electronics. Equally Critical is maintaining a safe speed for the conditions.
Click to expand...
I've made night runs, but always at idle or just enough to maintain proper steerage.

Maybe he wasn't criminally negligent, but clearly going too fast to avoid the marker..
 
alk said:
No different than driving a car, at least it should not be. If you are diving down the road with too many people in your car, and slide off the road and wrap your car around a telephone pole - does it matter that you had too many people in your car? Maybe if two of them were riding on the roof it does - but the cause of the crash was you hitting the telephone pole, not that you had an extra person in the back seat.
Click to expand...
Apple to oranges. Very different because in a car the passengers are not standing in front of you, they’re behind or next to you.
 
PascalG said:
Apple to oranges. Very different because in a car the passengers are not standing in front of you, they’re behind or next to you.
Click to expand...

Why does that matter, the view? I’m 6’5”, if I’m out with a boat full of teenage girls, I’m a foot taller than most of them.

I think perhaps the guy was drunk? They found 61 empty cans and bottles on the boat - although I guess if you have 14 people, that helps. He hit the marker at 47 mph. If you have three people on board, or 13, and you hit a marker at 47 mph - it doesn’t end well. But the number of people didn’t cause the accident. That, and one of the top lawyers in the state gets you a walk.
 
Last edited:
alk said:
Why does that matter, the view? I’m 6’5”, if I’m out with a boat full of teenage girls, I’m a foot taller than most of them.

I think perhaps the guy was drunk? They found 61 empty cans and bottles on the boat - although I guess if you have 14 people, that helps. He hit the marker at 47 mph. If you have three people on board, or 13, and you hit a marker at 47 mph - it doesn’t end well. But the number of people didn’t cause the accident. That, and one of the top lawyers in the state gets you a walk.
Click to expand...

The view matters because you need to see things, .... like markers that you can hit. Not everyone is 6'5" and see over everyone. I am between 5'9" and 5'10". I have to tell my boat guests all the time to sit down in front, even with a small group aboard. When we are coming up to a dock, some insist on "helping". All they do is block my view when I'm coming in.
 
Last edited:
alk said:
Why does that matter, the view? I’m 6’5”, if I’m out with a boat full of teenage girls, I’m a foot taller than most of them.

I think perhaps the guy was drunk? They found 61 empty cans and bottles on the boat - although I guess if you have 14 people, that helps. He hit the marker at 47 mph. If you have three people on board, or 13, and you hit a marker at 47 mph - it doesn’t end well. But the number of people didn’t cause the accident. That, and one of the top lawyers in the state gets you a walk.
Click to expand...
You re joking right? If you don’t understand how a bunch of people forward of the helm of a center console will cause issues spotting markers you have no business driving a boat.


The guy wasn’t charged with BUI and there is no evidence he had been drinking. As to the number of empty cans and bottles, this may make for clicks and views and ratings but it s complete BS. Not only could they have been consumed by other people but they could also have been picked up at a beach or sandbar. We frequently pick up litter incl freshly discarded beer bottles, doenst mean I drank them! Ridiculous.
 
PascalG said:
You re joking right? If you don’t understand how a bunch of people forward of the helm of a center console will cause issues spotting markers you have no business driving a boat.


The guy wasn’t charged with BUI and there is no evidence he had been drinking. As to the number of empty cans and bottles, this may make for clicks and views and ratings but it s complete BS. Not only could they have been consumed by other people but they could also have been picked up at a beach or sandbar. We frequently pick up litter incl freshly discarded beer bottles, doenst mean I drank them! Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
So we should sue the boat manufacturer. :)
 
Speed to fast for conditions comes to mind. Why that was not part of the argument escapes me. Wasn't there a raft of civil cases?
 
Some manufacturers like Whaler including seating chats showing when people can and can not sit underway..
 
boatbum said:
Speed to fast for conditions comes to mind. Why that was not part of the argument escapes me. Wasn't there a raft of civil cases?
Click to expand...
US Inland Navigation Rules (33CFR 83) Part B, Rule 6 addresses safe speed (sub [v] seems relevant), and Rule 5 talks about maintaining a proper lookout, which obviously didn't happen -

Rule 5 - Lookout Return to the top of the page
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

Rule 6 - Safe Speed Return to the top of the page
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:​
(a) By all vessels:
(i) The state of visibility;
(ii) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
(iii) The maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
(iv) At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
(v) The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
(vi) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
The article doesn't seem to address whether he was convicted of any NavRules violations (though it would be like a 'consolation prize.')
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top