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

[foenix]

Yes i actually own a boat how about yourself ? And being that i do own a boat and actually do spend time on our wonderful lake i actually know how important it is to not be sitting there looking at the stars without an anchor light on at the very least. The operator of the other boat put all of his passengers at risk by turning off the lights so they could look the stars thats negligence 100%

Conservatives: "Hey, it's pitch black out and we're drunk and can't see a thing. So let's put the pedal to the metal and if we kill some people, we'll rely on our wealth and fame to bail us out."

Try that defence next time it's foggy on the connector and you can't see where you're going. Likely it won't work for the rubes.

.....but....but ....but...... they didn't have the emergency blinkers on.....

[Boosted632]

She wasnt given an impaired charge so she wasnt drunk the other boat opetator however purposely turned off the lights on his boat putting his 12 ( to many for that boat) passengers at risk. The only reason she would have gotten the charge that she got was because the other boater claimed his lights were on, that charge will be dropped due to the video evidence and the other boater will be found to be at fault and will hopefully be sued by his other passengers HE is responsible for the death of his two friends

[foenix]

She wasnt given an impaired charge so she wasnt drunk the other boat opetator however purposely turned off the lights on his boat putting his 12 ( to many for that boat) passengers at risk. The only reason she would have gotten the charge that she got was because the other boater claimed his lights were on, that charge will be dropped due to the video evidence and the other boater will be found to be at fault and will hopefully be sued by his other passengers HE is responsible for the death of his two friends

No, she's still gonna be charged as per the Shipping Act or she should if she doesn't buy her way out (gold plated lawyer).......she wasn't paying attention as required by the Shipping Act and Collision Regulation. There is an onus on the operator to be aware at all times, even if the other boat didn't have the lights on.
She could have easily run into a rowboat, kayak, or even a huge log and put her passengers and other people at risk......and in this case, she caused the death of two people because of her negligence in operating a boat in the dark......regardless of her "I had one drink after the accident" ..........excuse.

edit to add: That video "evidence" was already turned over to the police and the other boater was charged with not having he's lights on......so the trial is still about her negligent operation of a boat in the DARK.

[Sparki55]

Conservatives: "Hey, it's pitch black out and we're drunk and can't see a thing. So let's put the pedal to the metal and if we kill some people, we'll rely on our wealth and fame to bail us out."

Yeah, that's exactly what happened....

[crookedmember]

Conservatives: "Hey, it's pitch black out and we're drunk and can't see a thing. So let's put the pedal to the metal and if we kill some people, we'll rely on our wealth and fame to bail us out."

Yeah, that's exactly what happened....

Shockingly!

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.

“One of the first things she said was she was the one driving the boat and she felt she had done nothing wrong,” [OPP Const] Ingham testified.

[The Green Barbarian]

Conservatives: "Hey, it's pitch black out and we're drunk and can't see a thing. So let's put the pedal to the metal and if we kill some people, we'll rely on our wealth and fame to bail us out."

Try that defence next time it's foggy on the connector and you can't see where you're going. Likely it won't work for the rubes.

What does this have to do with "Conservatives"? People who are not conservatives also get into unfortunate accidents too.

[PoplarSoul]

“One of the first things she said was she was the one driving the boat and she felt she had done nothing wrong,” [OPP Const] Ingham testified.

After video footage I still believe he was driving the boat and they decided she would take the blame to protect his career (money maker) because they knew dam well he did something wrong.
The first thing she should have said is "are the people on the other boat doing ok?"

[foenix]

Also....a little suspicious......

Despite Linda O’Leary telling a police officer she had not been drinking alcohol — even before being asked — she was reluctant to take an alcohol breath test on the night the speedboat she was driving collided with another boat, killing two passengers, court heard.

An Ontario Provincial Police officer said O’Leary’s demeanour and body language, a smell of alcohol, and the pupils of her eyes looking dilated suggested a breath test was appropriate, Const. Michelle Ingham told court Monday morning.

Ingham said Linda O’Leary was sometimes hesitant and reluctant to provide information, questioned the accuracy of the officer’s statements on the law, and said she felt like she was in trouble but didn’t do anything wrong.

“I told her that in my opinion her pupils appeared to be dilated. In response,” Ingham testified, “she in turn, said to me that my pupils appear dilated to her.”

O’Leary asked what would happen if she refused to take the test, Ingham said. After being told she would be charged with refusing to provide a breath sample with potential penalties being equivalent to failing a breath test, O’Leary complied, about two hours after the crash.

Although she told the officer she had not been drinking, she later said she had a vodka and water after the crash, which someone gave her when she got to the cottage, the officer testified.

Each of the young witnesses, including Trevor, said they did not serve Linda O’Leary an alcoholic drink, nor did they see anyone else serving or drinking alcohol, after the crash.

Tauber said he did take O’Leary a glass of water that was on the counter and put it beside her on a bedside table. He later refilled it with water when he saw it was empty.

At the same time, the explanation raises questions. Calvin Barry is a prominent Toronto defence lawyer with decades spent representing people charged with drunk-driving offences. Clients regularly call him when they’ve been behind the wheel in a car accident, often where alcohol is involved, to strategize before the police arrive. Drinking alcohol immediately after an accident, he says, makes it extremely difficult for a toxicologist to determine the crucial question of what booze was consumed when. The loophole, which Barry stresses he does not exploit, is often referred to as the “intervening drink defence.” It was a common legal strategy..........

“You’ve got to wonder,” says Barry, “why would somebody pound back a drink after being involved in a horrific boat crash?”

But I'm sure with the O'Leary's being able to buy the very best lawyer possible....this won't even come up......except perhaps at the civil trial that will come after.

[Sparki55]

Yeah, that's exactly what happened....

Shockingly!

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.

“One of the first things she said was she was the one driving the boat and she felt she had done nothing wrong,” [OPP Const] Ingham testified.

That doesn't equal what you wrote. Blowing a warning does not equal drunk. Getting a boat on plane so you can see over the bow does not equal pedal to the floor. I'm not sure why you feel the need to exagerate? I'm fine to discuss the facts and opinions but that is not what you are doing.

[Carrs Landing Viking]

She wasnt given an impaired charge so she wasnt drunk the other boat opetator however purposely turned off the lights on his boat putting his 12 ( to many for that boat) passengers at risk. The only reason she would have gotten the charge that she got was because the other boater claimed his lights were on, that charge will be dropped due to the video evidence and the other boater will be found to be at fault and will hopefully be sued by his other passengers HE is responsible for the death of his two friends

Anyone who has ever OWNED a boat will know that if a boat has no lights on, on a dark night, that boat is invisible.

The boat with no lights on was 100% responsible for their own misfortune. No ifs and's or buts.

[Bsuds]

Anyone who has ever OWNED a boat will know that if a boat has no lights on, on a dark night, that boat is invisible.

The boat with no lights on was 100% responsible for their own misfortune. No ifs and's or buts.

I agree except would put it at 98%. There is still some responsibility on the O'leary's.

[Sparki55]

Anyone who has ever OWNED a boat will know that if a boat has no lights on, on a dark night, that boat is invisible.

The boat with no lights on was 100% responsible for their own misfortune. No ifs and's or buts.

I agree except would put it at 98%. There is still some responsibility on the O'leary's.

Even 80%/20% is fair. Blowing a warning and missing a large object in the water isn't good boating practice. Had the O'Leary's hit a fully illuminated boat the story would be much different.

[Ken7]

For those who are not familiar with lighting requirements for boats.

https://www.westmarine.com/WestAdvisor/ ... ight-Rules

I'm aware and therefore believe comments can be meaningful. Don't worry others comment even if they did not know that. Thanks.

[Even Steven]

Not guilty.

[lesliepaul]

Not guilty.

As she should be with the video evidence presented.

..........still a very unfortunate accident with two lives lost. No one here involved EVER envisioned such a tragic event occurring that evening.