http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2008-05-21&dayid=116

The preliminary hearing on vehicular manslaughter charges against Bismarck Dinius, 39, of Carmichael, was held yesterday and will continue today in Lakeport in Lake County. The charges were filed as a result of the death of Lynn Thornton, 51, who was killed on the O'Day 28 Beats Workin' II on the windless night of April 29, 2006, on Clear Lake. Dinius happened to be sitting at the helmsman's position of the sailboat at the time Thornton suffered the injuries that would kill her.

We think that Dinius to defend himself on these charges is a travesty of justice, as what really caused Thornton's death is Russell Perdock of Lake County slamming his appropriately named Baja Outlaw 24-ft powerboat into Beats Workin' II at 40 mph or more. Why hasn't Perdock been charged? There can only be one explanation in our mind — he's the number two man at the Lake County Sheriff's Department, and law enforcement up there, based on this case, appears to be corrupt as hell.

As ridiculous as it might sound, the prosecutors, colleagues of Perdock's, are claiming that Thornton's death was Dinius' fault because, although he was not the skipper of the boat, he was at the helmsman's position, he was under the influence of alcohol, and that the boat's running lights were not on.

It is true that Dinius was over the current alcohol limit, although he was under the old limit for being intoxicated. In other words, he wasn't smashed. In any event, given the windless conditions, there was no way he — or any other sailor — could have avoided a powerboat coming at him out of the black at 40+ mph.

There are conflicting reports about whether or not Beats Workin' II had her running lights on. Several witnesses on shore, including a retired law enforcement officer, said the running lights were on. Tellingly, these witnesses had to be forced upon law enforcement officials, who had said they didn't need any more testimony. Furthermore, William Chilcott, a marine safety scientist, has testified that Beats Workin' II's running lights had been on and went off at the instant of impact.

Even more interesting is the testimony of Wes Dodd who, during the course of his career, has investigated over 625 marine accidents while in law enforcement, and 27 more since he retired in '01. Get this — although Dodd taught Lake County law enforcement officials everything they know about boat accident investigations, he has concluded that Perdock, one of their own, was the primary cause of Thorton's death:

"My conclusion is that speed was the primary factor in this collision. In order to ramp the sailboat and cause the amount of damage done, Mr. Perdock would have had to be going 40+ miles per hour . . ." Indeed, Perdock admitted that he was travelling that fast. In fact, he's testified that he'd done it on a number of other times on pitch black nights, in violation of the most basic rule of the road. Perdock, Mr. Law Enforcement, has never taken a safe boating course.

Dodd went on to testify that "due to darkness and poor visibility, Mr. Perdock should have reduced his speed to avoid collision or damage."

In addition, Dodd absolves Dinius of responsibility. "Had Mr. Dinius not been intoxicated, he would have not been able to maneuver the sailboat in time to avoid the collision. Had Mr. Perdock been operating his vessel at a safe, prudent speed, this accident could have been avoided."

Our reaction is, "Well, duh!" But with the Lake County Sheriff's Department working so hard to convict Dinius in an apparent attempt to divert attention from Perdock, the real culprit, there is no way to avoid having to go through the obvious.

We want to compliment Dan Noyes and the Channel 7 I-Team news for having jumped on and stayed with this story at a time when only Latitude had been covering it in detail and calling attention to the outrage. As if things weren't so disgusting in Lake County already, Noyes has uncovered more: "Late on Tuesday afternoon, the I-Team learned that, just this past Sunday, a sergeant came forward to say he'd been instructed on shore the night of the accident not to give a breath test to Russell Perdock."

If justice is done, we'll soon be able to tell you: 1) That the manslaughter charges against Dinius have been dropped; 2) Lake County has agreed to pay all his legal fees; 3) That Perdock has been indicted for the death of Lynn Thornton, and 4) That the Lake County District Attorney has resigned.

Here are the latest reports from the local TV station

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=6155477

no more real news, but here is a more recent article

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080524/NEWS/805240328/1033

>...But passengers aboard the sailboat say the lights in the cabin were on, and Weber told investigators he was
certain he'd turned on the running lights and left them on.

However, a crucial light for avoiding the collision would have been in the stern, or rear, of the 27-foot sailboat.<

On my old monohull, it has a weak stern light(Perko) that can only been seen well within a 60+- degree angle shooting back,
so a witness on shore could be out of range(angle) of the stern light.
Also cabin lights illuminate a sailboat 1000% more light than a stern light. The Defense could concentrate more on cabin lights.

My understanding is that a single white allround light is all that is required for small sailing yachts. Hell, even a torch shone on the sails intermittently is allowed for dinghies.

There's been a number of night time accidents on Sydney Harbour recently and there is always discussion in the media that with all the land based lights on around the harbour, you can't see navigation lights on boats. Maybe that was the case here too.

My understanding is that a single all-around white light is the "at anchor/steaming" light. The under sail nav lights require a white stern light (along with the port and starboard) that must be visible from a certain angle, Not sure what that angle is though.

Actually this link explains it better:

http://uscgboating.org/safety/fedreqs/equ_nav.htm

See figure 4 for what I am trying to describe. Of course if your engine is on you must display as a powered (not sailing) vessel.

I don't think any lighting would have made a difference.

The cop was obviously driving dangerously fast, not paying any attention to where he was going, probably drunk, but definitely drunk enough on his own self-worth to think the law didn't apply to him (assuming he even "bothered" to know the law).

To blame the other boat's lighting is his arrogant way of denying his responsibility for the incident. The crooked DA is playing along with the ruse, just to protect his buddy and cover up the blatant abuse of power the sheriff's department committed.

The deputy deserves to be strung up, the DA should be dis-barred, and the other deputies who refused to take witnesses' statements, or give the killer cop a breathalizer, should all be fired. The whole rotten bunch should definitely be charged with obstruction of justice.

Amen to that.

This is the most ridiculous case I have ever heard of. It is hard to believe it has even gotten this far in the court system. I thought for sure common sense would prevail by now. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

And, by the way, even IF (and that is a VERY big IF) the sailboat was somehow at fault for getting hit by the powerboat, why would it be the person at the helm of the sailboat who is charged with manslaughter rather than the owner and skipper of the sailboat, who was on board at the time? This would be a very bad precedent to set. I'm sure you all can see the possible ramifications in a variety of scenarios. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

They would have a hard time explaining why someone who wasn't driving should be charged with vehicular manslaughter

The skipper (captain) of the vessel is the one who is in control of and responsible for the operation of the vessel.

I agree with IndyWave......

Wasn't the captain of the Exxon Valdez convicted of grounding the vessel (and spilling the oil), even though he wasn't the one "steering" at the time?

That's true, however that's not the path they are trying to go down. If unabridged unanimous responsibility of the boat was placed solely on the skipper, and he was within the .08 limit, then the sailboat would be immune to any legal actions against it, especially concerning a collision with a power boat.

Instead, they say the helm was BUI. With BUI all that really matters is the person operating/driving the boat was over the legal limit; the responsibility of the skipper/owner of the boat is not a factor in the black and white definition of BUI. So they charge the helm with BUI, and since a death occurred while BUI..manslaughter.

The argument will be between whether they can charge the helm solely on the black and white basis of the BUI->manslaughter, or whether they will be forced to consider other factors such as the role of the maritime responsibility of the skipper. it's purely interpretation.

What I don't understand is how BUI can be a crime when that intoxication was not the cause of the accident. And when the "vehical" was not moving under mechanical power or even remotely at a fast pace.

If anything the intoxicated helm can be penalized (misdemeanour) for operating a "vehical" while being over the alcohol limit but not for causing the accident or being guilty for the accident.

Say I'm drunk and pushing my car on the driveway towards the garage and my neighbour hits my car with his at 60 mph and killing my wife who is in the car. How can my intoxication be regarded as guilt for manslaughter ? Would the situation be any different if I had been pushing the car while sober. Can my neightbour be reasonbly expected to occasionally hit my car and kill my wife at 60mph without breaking a score of other laws and regulations (like reckless driving) ?

Seems to me that they are trying to legally pin the crime on an otherwise innocent person simply because he was in violation of a practically unrelated misdeameaner. "over the limit" is NOT the same as being drunk. Operating a 4 knot sailboat in almost no wind is not the same as operating heavy machinary or vehicals travelling faster then 35 mph. It is not like a 4kn leadmine requires sharp reflexes for succesful and safe operation.

Another example, say I run down a drunken homeless person who is walking on the sidewalk pulling or pushing some old a bicycle with bags and containers. Can I then claim innocence of reckless driving (=driving on the sidewalk) simply because this homeless person was operating a vehical while drunk ?

Can I still ride my bicycle when I'm over the alcohol limit but not actually drunk. A bicycle is alot faster then a 4 mph leadmine.

Indeed, it is mind blowing that the courts have entertained this trial for so long.

Wouter

Beyond the guy at the helm making a left turn into the power boat (while moving 4 knots!), I would say whether or not navigation lights were on and/or operational (which is the crux of the argument as to why the powerboater is not at fault) would be the responsibility of the skipper/owner. Regardless though, this is silly. Why so much silly lately?

---"over the limit" is NOT the same as being drunk.---

That's the case for most of us, but too individualistic of an argument. A 100lb girl could be under the legal limit yet be considerably more "drunk" than a 200lb man who is triple the legal limit.

The sad (frustrating) thing about this is how intuitive it is that the power boat was 100% at fault. The judicial system pays no attention to obviousness though. The clear, bold reality of the situation is replaced by political bs.

This should be treated the same way as car/pedestrian situations. No matter what, if a car hits a pedestrian the car is at fault.

Hopefully, due to the publicity and F-ups of the authorities going about this, it will simply be thrown out. Any good lawyer should have a field day with this

You haven't had much experience with the American legal system have you. Nothing is ever for sure even after a decision has been rendered. That's why the appellate courts are years behind.

\

More specifically the California Legal System. What a joke!!!!!