Tragedy in Ft Myers

[psneeld]

Thank you.



One issue in a place like NJ, is the open container law is often a small fine and is so localized, not sure it even applies on the waterways.


Then when in Wilmington, NC...a know boat beach/island had a " no alcohol even in the boat " law. Even the local authorities were debating whether the law was legal/ constitutional.

 

[Benthic2]

I think even if he was stone cold sober, he should be tried for vehicular manslaughter.

I think even if he didn't kill his wife he should be charged with DUI.

Combine the two and he absolutely should be charged.

 

[Seevee]

Sometimes I really love the “better than thou” judgementalness of TF, and sometimes I do not.

Sadly this is one of those times.

Lets look at this just a bit.

The husband lost his wife to a tragic accident. Yes she was drunk, yes the whole bunch of them might have been drunk.

The guy driving the boat was not drunk when tested.

Those are the facts.

Was he negligent in even letting people near the transom of that boat while the props were turning, yes of course he was.

Were the people helping to push the boat negligent in being back by the props, yes of course they were.

Guys it’s pretty common knowledge that spinning boat props are dangerous. They were all negligent, everyone that participated was negligent.

Were any of them criminally negligent? My money says no. No jury is going to convict him.

A civil court might have awarded damages, but it was his wife who died, and him probably being her entire “estate” would not sue himself.

There might be a whole lot of tee totalers here on TF, but people drink guys. All those liquor stores are not just selling to hard core alcoholics.

This was simply a preventable accident that nobody envisioned when they set out that day to have some fun on the boat. The lesson to be reinforced here is to stay away from spinning props, not a lesson on morals.

Kevin,


Totally agree, and your facts stated above are spot on. According to the law, he will not be convicted of BUI. He is most likely guilty of violating [SIZE=-1]FS327.33, reckless or careless operation of vessel. How (or if) he will be prosecuted will most likely be up to the legal system. He sure qualifies for a Darwin award.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]As for the [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]tea totalers and the "holier than thou" crowd, I could argue that a lot of folks just go overboard on this. I could argue that the majority of boaters drink and I could argue that the majority of them do it responsible. One needs to know their own limits.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]There's nothing wrong with drinking responsibly. MUCH better and safer than smoking, which kills WAY more people including innocent folks. No one smokes on my boats and we can drink to that.
[/SIZE]

 

[smitty477]

Also...

Reading the police report.

The victims son was at the rear of the boat with a friend, and they were the ones that made a determining decision that the props were “clear”

The son stated that he had no clue how his mom got near the props.

so based on this, who’s fault is it?

The guy at the throttle?
The guy at the back of the boat that determined all was clear?

Seriously, that one thing adds a bunch of reasonable doubt in my mind.

You are at the throttles of a 36’ boat.
your son says all is clear, go for it.

Not commenting on the rest of the post but is this is a real question here...

"You are at the throttles of a 36’ boat.
your son says all is clear, go for it"

My answer will always be consistent and clear - I take no ones word for who or what may be at the stern of my boat when I operate it. This is what I learned at a very young age from books, captains, the power course as well as countless skilled operators. The same rule applies to all light and heavy machinery everywhere I have been.
YMMV

 

[psneeld]

at some point we all take someone's word for somethings we can neither see, understand, have knowledge of...etc...etc...


they are called lookouts, safety observers, crew, ....



it then depends on how much you trust that someone.

 

[dhays]

[SIZE=-1]As for the [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]tea totalers and the "holier than thou" crowd, I could argue that a lot of folks just go overboard on this. I could argue that the majority of boaters drink and I could argue that the majority of them do it responsible. One needs to know their own limits.
[/SIZE]

I do drink when I am on the boat. If we are traveling on the boat, I am perfectly happy to have my wife take the helm while I eat lunch and have a beer. However, I don’t see anyone who makes the decision to forbid drinking on their boat while underway as “going overboard”. They are making a safety decision they feel is appropriate for all aboard. They are also correct. Safety is improved if all aboard refrain from drinking or using drugs while underway. The only question is how much is safety improved.

I think you are probably correct that most boaters drink responsibly. At least I hope so. I also agree that one does need to know their own limits. However, in this regard I am very concerned that many are deluding themselves. Alcohol affects judgement so to assume that those that are under the influence of alcohol are able to correctly judge the extent of that influence is problematic at best.

The “yeah, but smoking...” argument is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the risk or extent of deaths related to alcohol. Sure, smoking kills 5 times the folks that alcohol does in the US. However, since smoking kills about 480,000 people a year in the US and only a bit over 300 people drown per year while boating, does that mean that those that use PFDs are over reacting if they wear a PFD while on deck? Are they “going overboard” or “holier than thou” if they require it of the guests and crew? I don’t think so.

 

[psneeld]

Dave...you hit the nail on the head with this statement...


"Safety is improved if all aboard refrain from drinking or using drugs while underway. The only question is how much is safety improved."


Like so many discussions on TF...the minutiae argued over in the name of safety, or seamanship, professionalism, etc...etc... is the real argument.....not the topic itself usually.

 

[SoWhat]

Totally agree, and your facts stated above are spot on. According to the law, he will not be convicted of BUI. He is most likely guilty of violating [SIZE=-1]FS327.33, reckless or careless operation of vessel. How (or if) he will be prosecuted will most likely be up to the legal system.[/SIZE]

In addition to 327.33 he should be charged with

782.072 Vessel homicide.—“Vessel homicide” is the killing of a human being by the operation of a vessel as defined in s. 327.02 by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another. Vessel homicide is:
(1) A felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Police should charge him with all offenses they believe he may have committed. Prosecutor will then plea bargain it all down. Hopefully surrender of boating license and alcohol free probation at a minimum. Seriously, having his drunk passengers jump out to push a 10,000 lb boat off a sandbar?

 

[ksanders]

In addition to 327.33 he should be charged with

782.072 Vessel homicide.—“Vessel homicide” is the killing of a human being by the operation of a vessel as defined in s. 327.02 by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another. Vessel homicide is:
(1) A felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Police should charge him with all offenses they believe he may have committed. Prosecutor will then plea bargain it all down. Hopefully surrender of boating license and alcohol free probation at a minimum. Seriously, having his drunk passengers jump out to push a 10,000 lb boat off a sandbar?

OK, lets play a game here...

The son testifies under oath to the EXACT same thing he said to the police officer taking the initial report. Yes his statement is in the report.

That he and his friend were at the rear of the boat and out of the way because he is an experienced boater.

That he has no clue how his mom got near the props. That she appeared out of nowhere.


Now lets take this one further that the operator testifies that he clearly instructed everyone about the danger of the props, and that his wife obviously disregarded his instructions, and the result was her death.

geez, you guys want this guy to be guilty of something so you are using circular reasoning to support your “case”.


I’m gong to submit that this might have been an accident caused by a intoxicated person that disregarded the vessel operators instructions and that her disregarding those instructions caused her death.

 

[Woodland Hills]

The person who was drinking and who acted irresponsibly paid with her life. What more punishment do you want? Dig her up and have her remains flogged?

A child has lost his mother and a husband has lost his wife. How much more can they be punished? Does humiliating them here do anything beyond making some folks here feel better about themselves ?

 

[psneeld]

In addition to 327.33 he should be charged with

782.072 Vessel homicide.—“Vessel homicide” is the killing of a human being by the operation of a vessel as defined in s. 327.02 by another in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another. Vessel homicide is:
(1) A felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Police should charge him with all offenses they believe he may have committed. Prosecutor will then plea bargain it all down. Hopefully surrender of boating license and alcohol free probation at a minimum. Seriously, having his drunk passengers jump out to push a 10,000 lb boat off a sandbar?

Don't use that as a metric...its way more common than you think

 

[SoWhat]

OK, lets play a game here...

The son testifies under oath to the EXACT same thing he said to the police officer taking the initial report. Yes his statement is in the report.

That he and his friend were at the rear of the boat and out of the way because he is an experienced boater.

That he has no clue how his mom got near the props. That she appeared out of nowhere.


Now lets take this one further that the operator testifies that he clearly instructed everyone about the danger of the props, and that his wife obviously disregarded his instructions, and the result was her death.

geez, you guys want this guy to be guilty of something so you are using circular reasoning to support your “case”.


I’m gong to submit that this might have been an accident caused by a intoxicated person that disregarded the vessel operators instructions and that her disregarding those instructions caused her death.

It might have been. It also might have been reckless and negligent operation. We'll never know with certainty. The press will move on to the next tragedy and this case will be quietly plea bargained.

The credibility of a bunch of drunks blaming the wife is probably zero. The captain is responsible for safe operation of his vessel in any case. He should be prosecuted accordingly.

 

[jimisbell]

Sometimes I really love the “better than thou” judgementalness of TF, and sometimes I do not.

Sadly this is one of those times.

Lets look at this just a bit.

The husband lost his wife to a tragic accident. Yes she was drunk, yes the whole bunch of them might have been drunk.

The guy driving the boat was not drunk when tested.

Those are the facts.

Was he negligent in even letting people near the transom of that boat while the props were turning, yes of course he was.

Were the people helping to push the boat negligent in being back by the props, yes of course they were.

Guys it’s pretty common knowledge that spinning boat props are dangerous. They were all negligent, everyone that participated was negligent.

Were any of them criminally negligent? My money says no. No jury is going to convict him.

A civil court might have awarded damages, but it was his wife who died, and him probably being her entire “estate” would not sue himself.

There might be a whole lot of tee totalers here on TF, but people drink guys. All those liquor stores are not just selling to hard core alcoholics.

This was simply a preventable accident that nobody envisioned when they set out that day to have some fun on the boat. The lesson to be reinforced here is to stay away from spinning props, not a lesson on morals.

I havent seen anyone comment on moral or religious grounds! My statements were NOT "Holier than Thou. " I stated no one drinks on my boat and it has nothing to do with holiness or morals. I DO drink, but not on my boat or in my car or in my airplane. Again has nothing to do with morals, has only to do with safety.

 

[Shrew]

I’m gong to submit that this might have been an accident caused by a intoxicated person that disregarded the vessel operators instructions and that her disregarding those instructions caused her death.

That is, basically, the point I was trying to make back in post #40, but got a bit banged up for it.

 

[ksanders]

That is, basically, the point I was trying to make back in post #40, but got a bit banged up for it.

Yep

The problem we have is the concept that the captain is responsible for everything.

That might work in the military where you have a trained crew, but it does not work all the time in civilian life. Sometimes you can tell someone something and they disregard it. A reasonable recreational captain has an expectation that his instructions are followed.

Then you have the presumption of guilt throughout this thread that the operator was legally intoxicated at the time of the incident. The facts do not support that presumption, and if they did he would have been arrested at the time, just like any dry land DUI suspect gets arrested.

Further you then have the presumption that if he was intoxicated, that being intoxicated caused, or resulted in his wife’s death, so not we are basing things on Two presumptions.

This is a tragedy for certain. This guy will forever see his wife floating in the water in his nightmares. He will always play the coulda shoulda, woulda scenario in his head, for the rest of his life.

 

[Northern Spy]

There were lots of witnesses and videos of the incident as it happened in shallow water near a crowded beach. It says so in the police report.

I'm sure there are a few news stories around. Here is one for the dockside dogmaticians to ponder.

https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/witnesses-recall-moment-woman-dies-by-boat-propeller

Honestly, I really doubt that any of us have anything to learn from this situation. Otherwise we'd be on a different forum. One where three 300hp outboards were commonplace...

 

[Seevee]

Not commenting on the rest of the post but is this is a real question here...

"You are at the throttles of a 36’ boat.
your son says all is clear, go for it"

My answer will always be consistent and clear - I take no ones word for who or what may be at the stern of my boat when I operate it. This is what I learned at a very young age from books, captains, the power course as well as countless skilled operators. The same rule applies to all light and heavy machinery everywhere I have been.
YMMV

Smitty,
Not quite true. There are a LOT of light and heavy machinery that operate on the "crew concept" and the captain needs to trust the input from his crew as he if often unable to do it all by himself. You see that a lot with boats and planes. And often the captain is paired with a crew that he has never met or worked with before.



If your co-captain tells you the stern is clear and you don't trust him, then fire him and get one you trust.

 

[Seevee]

I do drink when I am on the boat. If we are traveling on the boat, I am perfectly happy to have my wife take the helm while I eat lunch and have a beer. However, I don’t see anyone who makes the decision to forbid drinking on their boat while underway as “going overboard”. They are making a safety decision they feel is appropriate for all aboard. They are also correct. Safety is improved if all aboard refrain from drinking or using drugs while underway. The only question is how much is safety improved.

I think you are probably correct that most boaters drink responsibly. At least I hope so. I also agree that one does need to know their own limits. However, in this regard I am very concerned that many are deluding themselves. Alcohol affects judgement so to assume that those that are under the influence of alcohol are able to correctly judge the extent of that influence is problematic at best.

The “yeah, but smoking...” argument is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the risk or extent of deaths related to alcohol. Sure, smoking kills 5 times the folks that alcohol does in the US. However, since smoking kills about 480,000 people a year in the US and only a bit over 300 people drown per year while boating, does that mean that those that use PFDs are over reacting if they wear a PFD while on deck? Are they “going overboard” or “holier than thou” if they require it of the guests and crew? I don’t think so.

Dave,


I was agreeing with Kevin. Sure seems like a lot of comments implied that anyone who drinks on a boat is not safe, and he who has a drink is going to die in a fiery crash and burn in hell.



The comment on smoking isn't to diminish any other safety cause, but if it's 5 times more lethal, perhaps we should pay more attention.


I think that wearing a PDF can be considered "a bit overboard" in some cases. Underway, no. At anchor or the dock, perhaps. Just like wearing a PDF while crossing a bridge. I've got no issue if someone wants to do that... their choice. Kids, no issue with that at all, same with irresponsible adults.

 

[Seevee]

Dave...you hit the nail on the head with this statement...


"Safety is improved if all aboard refrain from drinking or using drugs while underway. The only question is how much is safety improved."


Like so many discussions on TF...the minutiae argued over in the name of safety, or seamanship, professionalism, etc...etc... is the real argument.....not the topic itself usually.

Paul,


Good points. However, in a lot of cases the safety of having one, perhaps two drinks vs none, the safety level may not even be measurable.



Drugs, not my thing so can't comment about them.


I'd argue that the vast majority of folks here value safety as the most important priority on their boat. But there's a LOT of things that affect safety.

 

[psneeld]

Paul,


Good points. However, in a lot of cases the safety of having one, perhaps two drinks vs none, the safety level may not even be measurable.



Drugs, not my thing so can't comment about them.


I'd argue that the vast majority of folks here value safety as the most important priority on their boat. But there's a LOT of things that affect safety.

That is my point on 2 levels...one - how much does something change safety? (I even think too many times here the word safety is misused) Drinking and boating is really operational risk management.


The second is - were does the entire topic fall in the whole realm of how "safe" a voyage is?....based on many factors.


With many accident/safety discussions here.... its hard to stay in for long as they deteriorate into "feelings" rather than root causes, measurable levels, probabilities, etc...etc...

 

[smitty477]

Smitty,
Not quite true. There are a LOT of light and heavy machinery that operate on the "crew concept" and the captain needs to trust the input from his crew as he if often unable to do it all by himself. You see that a lot with boats and planes. And often the captain is paired with a crew that he has never met or worked with before.



If your co-captain tells you the stern is clear and you don't trust him, then fire him and get one you trust.

"Not quite true. There are a LOT of light and heavy machinery that operate on the "crew concept" and the captain needs to trust the input from his crew as he if often unable to do it all by himself"

I agree with this - I was not under the impression that we were speaking about professionally trained and licensed crews in this post. I was responding to an example of a person with a private 34' boat.

 

[smitty477]

Yep

The problem we have is the concept that the captain is responsible for everything.

That might work in the military where you have a trained crew, but it does not work all the time in civilian life. Sometimes you can tell someone something and they disregard it. A reasonable recreational captain has an expectation that his instructions are followed.

Then you have the presumption of guilt throughout this thread that the operator was legally intoxicated at the time of the incident. The facts do not support that presumption, and if they did he would have been arrested at the time, just like any dry land DUI suspect gets arrested.

Further you then have the presumption that if he was intoxicated, that being intoxicated caused, or resulted in his wife’s death, so not we are basing things on Two presumptions.

This is a tragedy for certain. This guy will forever see his wife floating in the water in his nightmares. He will always play the coulda shoulda, woulda scenario in his head, for the rest of his life.

"That might work in the military where you have a trained crew, but it does not work all the time in civilian life."
Agreed Kevin.

"A reasonable recreational captain has an expectation that his instructions are followed."
The exact opposite in my case - I do not expect unknowledgeable and untrained folks on boats to follow just about any instruction - we read about this all the time on forums from what they put into the heads to how they break bones when docking. Sometimes the captain has read them a set of rules or asked them to read the rules ahead of the voyage but they do not follow.
And for those that have had experience in boat charters and or delivery you must have seen this many times, I know we see it here all the time.

 

[Northern Spy]

Judgey pants on again.

There was no "captaining" going on here.

This is the equivalent of a 900hp jetski or pontoon boat. No captain required, just a throttle and steering wheel operator.

A means to an end.

Here's the part I don't understand, how does one get stuck on a sandbar when the tide difference is only eleven inches? Low tide is at 11AM, high tide is at 5PM.

They got there at noon and attempted to leave at 5:30.

 

[Seevee]

"Not quite true. There are a LOT of light and heavy machinery that operate on the "crew concept" and the captain needs to trust the input from his crew as he if often unable to do it all by himself"

I agree with this - I was not under the impression that we were speaking about professionally trained and licensed crews in this post. I was responding to an example of a person with a private 34' boat.

Understand, however, I could argue to operate the 34' boat the same level of crew safety as you do your commercial boat.



I could also argue, if you're in doubt as to your crew, don't use them.

 

[BandB]

The “yeah, but smoking...” argument is nothing more than an attempt to minimize the risk or extent of deaths related to alcohol. Sure, smoking kills 5 times the folks that alcohol does in the US. However, since smoking kills about 480,000 people a year in the US and only a bit over 300 people drown per year while boating, does that mean that those that use PFDs are over reacting if they wear a PFD while on deck? Are they “going overboard” or “holier than thou” if they require it of the guests and crew? I don’t think so.

And for the record, we don't allow smoking on our boats, at our home or on any of our personal or business properties, but none of that has anything to do with drinking on a boat and killing your spouse in the operation of the boat.

 

[jimisbell]

Smitty,
Not quite true. There are a LOT of light and heavy machinery that operate on the "crew concept" and the captain needs to trust the input from his crew as he if often unable to do it all by himself. You see that a lot with boats and planes. And often the captain is paired with a crew that he has never met or worked with before.
If your co-captain tells you the stern is clear and you don't trust him, then fire him and get one you trust.

That is why, NO ONE DRINKS ON MY BOAT. Not morals, not religious beliefs. I AM NOT a teetotaler. I drink when it is appropriate (not within 24 hours if I am flying!). BUT if I may have to depend on someone on the boat for eyes, ears, or muscle, I dont want that person to be impaired. Because if they are, then, I AM IMPAIRED!

 

[catalinajack]

Exactly. Here's an example. How about high-rise crane operators who sit in a cab thirty stories above ground level? Think they can personally verify all is clear down below? C'mon!

Smitty,
Not quite true. There are a LOT of light and heavy machinery that operate on the "crew concept" and the captain needs to trust the input from his crew as he if often unable to do it all by himself. You see that a lot with boats and planes. And often the captain is paired with a crew that he has never met or worked with before.



If your co-captain tells you the stern is clear and you don't trust him, then fire him and get one you trust.