Kevin O'Leary's wife crashes boat and kills a man..

[Boosted632]

To be fair to the O'Learys, it's really hard to see things when you're pickled.

Honestly, a couple who couldn't even remember how much they drank killed two people. And some people are defending them?

Its also really hard to see things like the neglegent owners boat that had no lights on resulting in two dead people

[crookedmember]

To be fair to the O'Learys, it's really hard to see things when you're pickled.

Honestly, a couple who couldn't even remember how much they drank killed two people. And some people are defending them?

Its also really hard to see things like the neglegent owners boat that had no lights on resulting in two dead people

The O’Leary vessel struck a drifting boat, a Super Air Nautique, filled with stargazing passengers. Two seated in the bow died.

That happened because the O’Learys wrongly assumed “that if they didn’t see any lights, there was nothing in their way,” which is in clear contravention of the collision regulations in the Shipping Act, he said.

“If you’re boating in pitch black conditions, you cannot make assumptions of what may or may not be in front of you,” Adam said. And even if the Nautique’s lights were out at the time of the collision, the accused’s driving conduct was still careless, he argued.

“The collision and deaths... are the unfortunate and tragic consequences of Ms. O’Leary’s carelessness.”

The prosecution is also alleging the O’Leary boat was travelling at an excessive speed that night, bolstered by Kevin O’Leary’s testimony that they were driving at “planing” speed, which means the hull of their boat had lifted out of the water, Adam said.

But I can certainly understand the conservative sentiment that Class Privileges Matter. I mean, if you can't get a freebie on killing a couple of people while pickled, what's the point of being rich?

[foenix]

Its also really hard to see things like the neglegent owners boat that had no lights on resulting in two dead people

The O’Leary vessel struck a drifting boat, a Super Air Nautique, filled with stargazing passengers. Two seated in the bow died.

That happened because the O’Learys wrongly assumed “that if they didn’t see any lights, there was nothing in their way,” which is in clear contravention of the collision regulations in the Shipping Act, he said.

“If you’re boating in pitch black conditions, you cannot make assumptions of what may or may not be in front of you,” Adam said. And even if the Nautique’s lights were out at the time of the collision, the accused’s driving conduct was still careless, he argued.

“The collision and deaths... are the unfortunate and tragic consequences of Ms. O’Leary’s carelessness.”

The prosecution is also alleging the O’Leary boat was travelling at an excessive speed that night, bolstered by Kevin O’Leary’s testimony that they were driving at “planing” speed, which means the hull of their boat had lifted out of the water, Adam said.

But I can certainly understand the conservative sentiment that Class Privileges Matter. I mean, if you can't get a freebie on killing a couple of people while pickled, what's the point of being rich?

....don't forget about "significant" speed while operating in near blackout conditions.....now if that's not "reckless, dangerous and without due care and attenion", I don't know what those words mean.

[Boosted632]

But I can certainly understand the conservative sentiment that Class Privileges Matter. I mean, if you can't get a freebie on killing a couple of people while pickled, what's the point of being rich?

....don't forget about "significant" speed while operating in near blackout conditions.....now if that's not "reckless, dangerous and without due care and attenion", I don't know what those words mean.

Perhaps you should watch the video their boat was not travelling very fast the real reckless endangerment is sitting on the lake at night with no lights on and thats how the courts will see it

[The Green Barbarian]

But I can certainly understand the conservative sentiment that Class Privileges Matter.

In this case though the conservative sentiment is that the truth matters.

[Ken7]

The O'Learys. Killed. Two. People. While. Under. The. Influence.

They were wrist-slapped (gently) under the shipping act and the worst that can happen to them is a lousy $10,000 fine.

Does anyone think if a middle class person had drunkenly killed two people with their boat they would have snagged this deal?

Never mind a middle class brown person.

Do you understand what is required to prove Dangerous Operation of a Vessel as per Section 249(1) ??

"...everyone commits an offence who operates a vessel.... in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature and condition of those waters or sea and the use that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be made of those waters or sea."

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/C ... %20More%20

[Merry]

Some folks on this thread seem to think Mrs. O’Leary must be guilty, just because she has a rich and famous husband.

Fortunately, our courts don’t decide peoples guilt or innocence based on how rich and/or famous they are.

I’ve followed the news reports and, so far, have seen NO evidence that this accident was Mrs. O’Leary’s fault. None.

In fact, if the Police hadn’t viewed it as a “high profile incident”, I doubt they’d have laid any charges at all against Mrs. O’Leary. It seems to me they only did so in order to avoid accusations of favouritism, from those who always claim rich folks get “special” treatment.

And, while it is sometimes true that rich/high profile people do indeed get “special” treatment, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that is always the case.

The people in the other boat were also rich, and had made the foolish decision to star watch from a darkened boat in the middle of the lake. Mrs. O’Leary didn’t see them in the dark, resulting in a tragic collision. End of story.

[foenix]

s true that rich/high profile people do indeed get “special” treatment, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that is always the case.

The people in the other boat were also rich, and had made the foolish decision to star watch from a darkened boat in the middle of the lake. Mrs. O’Leary didn’t see them in the dark, resulting in a tragic collision. End of story.

So nothing about the foolish decision to have alcohol in the system while operating a boat, the initial refusal for a breath test, that no one saw her drinking alcohol after the accident, foolish decision in operating a boat at "significant speed" in pitch black night in violation of the Shipping Act and killing two people is end of the story? It would be for common folks like us Merry, we'd be packed off to jail and no questions asked but you know how it is with the rich, they have heir own set of moral codes and money to buy themselves out of any trouble.

[foenix]

The O'Learys. Killed. Two. People. While. Under. The. Influence.

They were wrist-slapped (gently) under the shipping act and the worst that can happen to them is a lousy $10,000 fine.

Does anyone think if a middle class person had drunkenly killed two people with their boat they would have snagged this deal?

Never mind a middle class brown person.

Do you understand what is required to prove Dangerous Operation of a Vessel as per Section 249(1) ??

"...everyone commits an offence who operates a vessel.... in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature and condition of those waters or sea and the use that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be made of those waters or sea."

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/C ... %20More%20

They weren't charged criminally but from reading your link, they could easily have been......

The situation for Canadian vessel operators is heightened by the positive ongoing obligation as set out at Rule 5 of the Collision Regulations:

"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."

With imprisonment being a possible consequence, and lengthy prohibitions against operating vessels being a common penalty, it is important for mariners to appreciate the lasting effects of momentary carelessness at the helm.

The more serious offence, criminal negligence, comes from §219 of the Criminal Code:

"Everyone is criminally negligent who in doing anything, or in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."

Negligence, Not Intent, is the Test

What is important about these offences in regards to mariners is that, unlike most criminal charges, it is not necessary for the Crown to prove the accused intended to commit the act in order to get a conviction - it is enough that the accused was careless or willfully blind to the risk.

It also gives a good example of a boating accident in Kelowna that I remember, seems to me, Linda O'Leary's case was even more damning then the skipper of the OK boating accident.

In 2005 a pontoon boat capsized in Lake Okanagan with 54 people aboard shortly after leaving the dock, killing one passenger who was trapped in the head.

The Crown charged the skipper of that vessel with dangerous operation of a vessel causing death and criminal negligence causing death on the basis that the skipper should have identified that the vessel was overloaded and unstable and that he should not have reversed the vessel away from the dock after two passengers had untied the vessel without instructions

The court said:

"For either criminal negligence or dangerous operation of a vessel, the basis of a finding of guilt in negligence, and the question is whether, viewed objectively, the accused exercised an appropriate standard of care. If an accused has fallen below an accepted standard of care, then the question is the extent to which he has fallen below the accepted standard of care."

The Court referred to the progressively severe nature of conduct that was required to convict a person of mere negligence, versus the more severe criminal charges of dangerous operation and criminal negligence when it said:

"... negligent driving or negligent operation of a vessel can be thought of as a continuum that progresses, or regresses, from momentary lack of attention giving rise to civil responsibility through careless operation of a vessel, under the Canada Shipping Act 2001, to dangerous (operation), culminating in criminal negligence which is conduct that shows a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons".

[Merry]

s true that rich/high profile people do indeed get “special” treatment, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that is always the case.

The people in the other boat were also rich, and had made the foolish decision to star watch from a darkened boat in the middle of the lake. Mrs. O’Leary didn’t see them in the dark, resulting in a tragic collision. End of story.

So nothing about the foolish decision to have alcohol in the system while operating a boat, the initial refusal for a breath test, that no one saw her drinking alcohol after the accident, foolish decision in operating a boat at "significant speed" in pitch black night in violation of the Shipping Act and killing two people is end of the story? It would be for common folks like us Merry, we'd be packed off to jail and no questions asked but you know how it is with the rich, they have heir own set of moral codes and money to buy themselves out of any trouble.

Mrs. O’Leary admitted to having one very weak drink prior to operating the boat. And that is NOT illegal.

There is not a single witness who testified she had any more to drink that afternoon than what she says she had. Not one.

And the idea that she was shaken up enough following the accident to have a good stiff drink (prior to finding out that anyone had even been hurt, much less killed), is not hard to believe. If I were in a similar situation, I think I might have a good stiff drink too.

The bottom line is, that there is not a shred of evidence that she is lying. None.

Therefore, in a system that believes guilt must be proven, I think the court will exonerate her.

[foenix]

So nothing about the foolish decision to have alcohol in the system while operating a boat, the initial refusal for a breath test, that no one saw her drinking alcohol after the accident, foolish decision in operating a boat at "significant speed" in pitch black night in violation of the Shipping Act and killing two people is end of the story? It would be for common folks like us Merry, we'd be packed off to jail and no questions asked but you know how it is with the rich, they have heir own set of moral codes and money to buy themselves out of any trouble.

Mrs. O’Leary admitted to having one very weak drink prior to operating the boat. And that is NOT illegal.

There is not a single witness who testified she had any more to drink that afternoon than what she says she had. Not one.

And the idea that she was shaken up enough following the accident to have a good stiff drink (prior to finding out that anyone had even been hurt, much less killed), is not hard to believe. If I were in a similar situation, I think I might have a good stiff drink too.

The bottom line is, that there is not a shred of evidence that she is lying. None.

Therefore, in a system that believes guilt must be proven, I think the court will exonerate her.

There is also the inconvenient fact that no one saw her drink or make a drink for her after the accident in a house full of people.

She also wouldn't tell the police initially who they had dinner with and of course their 'friends" would say she didn't have much....but the attending officer 2 hours later still smelled alcohol on her and reported she had red glazed eyes despite noone seeing her drink alcohol.

There is also not one shred of evidence she is telling the truth either......but look at the defination in Ken7's link about due care and attention while operating a boat. If you're going at significant speeds in near blackout conditions that's not due care and attenion even without the alcohol part.......and yes I'm sure she will get off....because you know, they're high profile, they have the best lawyers and the best PR firm to run interfernce.

[Merry]

Mrs. O’Leary admitted to having one very weak drink prior to operating the boat. And that is NOT illegal.

There is not a single witness who testified she had any more to drink that afternoon than what she says she had. Not one.

And the idea that she was shaken up enough following the accident to have a good stiff drink (prior to finding out that anyone had even been hurt, much less killed), is not hard to believe. If I were in a similar situation, I think I might have a good stiff drink too.

The bottom line is, that there is not a shred of evidence that she is lying. None.

Therefore, in a system that believes guilt must be proven, I think the court will exonerate her.

There is also the inconvenient fact that no one saw her drink or make a drink for her after the accident in a house full of people.

She also wouldn't tell the police initially who they had dinner with and of course their 'friends" would say she didn't have much....but the attending officer 2 hours later still smelled alcohol on her and reported she had red glazed eyes despite noone seeing her drink alcohol.

There is also not one shred of evidence she is telling the truth either......but look at the defination in Ken7's link about due care and attention while operating a boat. If you're going at significant speeds in near blackout conditions that's not due care and attenion even without the alcohol part.......and yes I'm sure she will get off....because you know, they're high profile, they have the best lawyers and the best PR firm to run interfernce.

You just dislike her because she’s married to a rich guy you hate.

I too find her husband obnoxious, but I also believe in justice. And our system of justice doesn’t find people guilty just because they’re rich and obnoxious.

Our system of justice requires evidence that people are guilty. And, in this case, there is absolutely NO evidence that Mrs. O’Leary had drunk over the legal limit prior to operating that boat. Speculation doesn’t count as evidence.

It’s not up to her to prove she didn’t drink more than what she said she did. It’s up to the Crown to prove that she did. And, so far, the Crown has produced no evidence to prove that. None.

[foenix]

There is also the inconvenient fact that no one saw her drink or make a drink for her after the accident in a house full of people.

She also wouldn't tell the police initially who they had dinner with and of course their 'friends" would say she didn't have much....but the attending officer 2 hours later still smelled alcohol on her and reported she had red glazed eyes despite noone seeing her drink alcohol.

There is also not one shred of evidence she is telling the truth either......but look at the defination in Ken7's link about due care and attention while operating a boat. If you're going at significant speeds in near blackout conditions that's not due care and attenion even without the alcohol part.......and yes I'm sure she will get off....because you know, they're high profile, they have the best lawyers and the best PR firm to run interfernce.

You just dislike her because she’s married to a rich guy you hate.

I too find her husband obnoxious, but I also believe in justice. And our system of justice doesn’t find people guilty just because they’re rich and obnoxious.

Our system of justice requires evidence that people are guilty. And, in this case, there is absolutely NO evidence that Mrs. O’Leary had drunk over the legal limit prior to operating that boat. Speculation doesn’t count as evidence.

It’s not up to her to prove she didn’t drink more than what she said she did. It’s up to the Crown to prove that she did. And, so far, the Crown has produced no evidence to prove that. None.

She's not charged with impaired boating, she's charged under the Shipping Act but she has to lie about the alcohol because of the civil lawsuit that will inevitably come after this trial. In that court the onerous of proof is much less. I think it will still be 50/50 that she gets charged for reckless and dangerous operation of a boat......big deal, I'm sure the cost of 2 lives are worth more than $10,000.

[Sparki55]

So nothing about the foolish decision to have alcohol in the system while operating a boat, the initial refusal for a breath test, that no one saw her drinking alcohol after the accident, foolish decision in operating a boat at "significant speed" in pitch black night in violation of the Shipping Act and killing two people is end of the story? It would be for common folks like us Merry, we'd be packed off to jail and no questions asked but you know how it is with the rich, they have heir own set of moral codes and money to buy themselves out of any trouble.

What if you hit a person in the middle of the night while driving a car? What if the person you hit was wearing black, lying on the pavement? What if you didn't have time to see them because you took a corner on the highway? Say you were going about 80 km/h, a typical speed for the highway you were on and the corner did not require braking. Do we charge you with this offense or is it the person's fault who was lying on the road with no reflective clothing?

What if you had one drink with diner before but couldn't remember if it was 2 hours or 3 hours before you struck the person? What if you are rich? Yeah, throw the book at the O'Learys, cleary they are incapable spoiled rich morons that need to be shown a lesson.

[foenix]

So nothing about the foolish decision to have alcohol in the system while operating a boat, the initial refusal for a breath test, that no one saw her drinking alcohol after the accident, foolish decision in operating a boat at "significant speed" in pitch black night in violation of the Shipping Act and killing two people is end of the story? It would be for common folks like us Merry, we'd be packed off to jail and no questions asked but you know how it is with the rich, they have heir own set of moral codes and money to buy themselves out of any trouble.

What if you hit a person in the middle of the night while driving a car? What if the person you hit was wearing black, lying on the pavement? What if you didn't have time to see them because you took a corner on the highway? Say you were going about 80 km/h, a typical speed for the highway you were on and the corner did not require braking. Do we charge you with this offense or is it the person's fault who was lying on the road with no reflective clothing?

What if you had one drink with diner before but couldn't remember if it was 2 hours or 3 hours before you struck the person? What if you are rich? Yeah, throw the book at the O'Learys, cleary they are incapable spoiled rich *bleep* that need to be shown a lesson.

So that would depend on if you had your headlights on and didn't smell like alcohol 2 hours later. Regardless of alcohol, would you drive 80 mph in complete darkness? ......how about 50 mph? How about just putting on blindfolds and driving?

You know if you're driving a car or a boat and speeding in a significant way in complete darkness, there is an obligation to make sure you're not going to run into something (Shipping Act). What if there was a big ole log in front, wreck the boat cause your going too fast for the conditions and then killed one of the passengers? Would she still be innocent?