Boater Fined for Excessive Wake

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well done! We`ve had green water over the transom from one of these 40 ft+ speedboats, seeing one fined after spending up defending, changing venue, etc feels right.
How come he was offered probation but only got a fine? Was jail time possible for the offense?
 
Well done! We`ve had green water over the transom from one of these 40 ft+ speedboats, seeing one fined after spending up defending, changing venue, etc feels right.
How come he was offered probation but only got a fine? Was jail time possible for the offense?
Think jail time would have required proving that he intentionally try to cause damage as opposed to simply being negligent. Would be much tougher to prove.

Ted
 
His mistake was waking a judge and pissing him off. Most of us wouldn't get the same respect.
 
His mistake was waking a judge and pissing him off. Most of us wouldn't get the same respect.

His mistakes were 17 kts in a 58' boat near small craft. Not paying attention. Not recognizing arm waving on a boat in front of him as a distress, or in this case attention getting signal.

His bad luck was pissing off the judge.
 
Well done! We`ve had green water over the transom from one of these 40 ft+ speedboats, seeing one fined after spending up defending, changing venue, etc feels right.
How come he was offered probation but only got a fine? Was jail time possible for the offense?

He got probation and a fine. He was convicted of a misdemeanor and waived right to appeal (I suspect to avoid the prospect of jail time). Generally, specific intent need not be proven as a condition to a jail time sentence.
 
Jail time would not be productive here. He was careless, not a criminal.
 
Jail time would not be productive here. He was careless, not a criminal.

That is for a judge, who has a better understanding of the facts, to decide, but he comited a crime and is a criminal, as a result of what was at least negligence. You may not like it, but that is our system.
 
That is for a judge, who has a better understanding of the facts, to decide, but he comited a crime and is a criminal, as a result of what was at least negligence. You may not like it, but that is our system.

Nope. No more of a "crime" than exceeding the speed limit (in your car) or failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. There's a big difference.

Robbing a store at gunpoint is a crime. Shooting a gun at another boater for making a wake is a crime.
 
You mean we're not allowed to shoot them? Well I'll be...
 
Jail time would not be productive here. He was careless, not a criminal.

I certainly don't have all the facts, but if this is anything like similar situations I have witnessed, "careless" is not a strong enough word.

While it's not technically illegal to be an a-hole, or arrogant, or totally indifferent to the other people you happen to share this planet with, it's quite possible this guy crossed that line.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for anyone steaming along at 17 knots in tight quarters, ignoring the situation around them. I could even argue that the only difference between that and armed robbery is the socioeconomic class of the perpetrator. Both crimes show a similar level of selfishness and callous disregard for others.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom