Come to New Zealand and die

**oneblackflag** · 13th May 2014, 21:14

Originally Posted by skippa1

Hardly a valid statement then aye.....

Didn't you catch the drift i was taking the piss out of the wild assumptions some have jumped to regarding impairment... Was only a few posts back...

**pritch** · 13th May 2014, 21:21

Originally Posted by MVnut

..then when people get killed while committing a crime (felony) it becomes murder

In the USA if you kill someone on the way to committing a felony, during the commisioning of a felony, or while leaving the scene of a crime where a felony has been committed, the charge is murder in the first degree.

But that's in the USA, this is New Zealand. (Just thought you ought to know that.)

**skippa1** · 13th May 2014, 21:30

Originally Posted by oneblackflag

Didn't you catch the drift i was taking the piss out of the wild assumptions some have jumped to regarding impairment... Was only a few posts back...

What I get is that the coroner has seen his drug use as recent enough to rate mention. That in itself is not jumping to a wild conclusion, it is a statement made by one that is qualified and has scientific fact at their disposal. To minimise or defend the effects of the drug, talk down the impact based on the users consumption and immunity to its effects or defence of his actions based on a measure against alcohol abuse is to minimise the value of the lives lost.

The use of drugs in this instance has been mentioned at this point as a possible contributing factor, if not the reason for the whole sad episode. It's not a mistake that this is raised, the proof at this point has been sufficient to release to the press......have you got some evidence that counters that?

**Katman** · 13th May 2014, 21:42

Originally Posted by skippa1

What I get is that the coroner has seen his drug use as recent enough to rate mention. That in itself is not jumping to a wild conclusion, it is a statement made by one that is qualified and has scientific fact at their disposal.

Are they qualified enough to make a call on whether the accident was caused by drug impairment?

**skippa1** · 13th May 2014, 21:43

Originally Posted by Katman

Are they qualified enough to make a call on whether the accident was caused by drug impairment?

More than you or I

**oneblackflag** · 13th May 2014, 21:44

Originally Posted by skippa1

What I get is that the coroner has seen his drug use as recent enough to rate mention. That in itself is not jumping to a wild conclusion, it is a statement made by one that is qualified and has scientific fact at their disposal. To minimise or defend the effects of the drug, talk down the impact based on the users consumption and immunity to its effects or defence of his actions based on a measure against alcohol abuse is to minimise the value of the lives lost.

The use of drugs in this instance has been mentioned at this point as a possible contributing factor, if not the reason for the whole sad episode. It's not a mistake that this is raised, the proof at this point has been sufficient to release to the press......have you got some evidence that counters that?

No I don't its still unknown and always will be.

The fact the Coroner has mentioned it in no way justifies people jumping on the boat of saying the pilot was under the influence, there is simply no proof.

If he was in fact under the influence, like most others I totally find it abhorrent but there is just no way to prove that. Innocent until proven guilty.

**Katman** · 13th May 2014, 21:46

Originally Posted by skippa1

More than you or I

But they never made that call, did they?

**skippa1** · 13th May 2014, 21:47

Originally Posted by oneblackflag

there is just no way to prove that

Ahhh I believe that the level of drugs detected has been proved already, this can then be applied to known impairment levels. Or are you better informed of the real facts?

**skippa1** · 13th May 2014, 21:48

Originally Posted by Katman

But they never made that call, did they?

Not yet, they haven't ruled it out either

**Katman** · 13th May 2014, 21:52

Originally Posted by skippa1

.... this can then be applied to known impairment levels.

Wow, sounds like you are privy to knowledge that no-one else is.

What are these known impairment levels you speak of and why aren't they in common use?

(Or are you just making shit up?)

**oneblackflag** · 13th May 2014, 21:55

Originally Posted by skippa1

Ahhh I believe that the level of drugs detected has been proved already, this can then be applied to known impairment levels. Or are you better informed of the real facts?

So did the Coroner say he was impaired using these 'impairment levels'?

**oneblackflag** · 13th May 2014, 21:57

Originally Posted by Katman

Wow, sounds like you are privy to knowledge that no-one else is.

What are these known impairment levels you speak of and why aren't they in common use?

(Or are you just making shit up?)

Id go with "making shit up" based on crap.

**skippa1** · 13th May 2014, 22:08

Originally Posted by Katman

Wow, sounds like you are privy to knowledge that no-one else is.

What are these known impairment levels you speak of and why aren't they in common use?

(Or are you just making shit up?)

Not privy to fuck all....nor are you. I'm no more into blaming the innocent than you are but there has to be a point where some assumptions must be drawn with a given set of facts.

This fucker roasted 11 people through either incompetence, impairment or stupid decision making. It's been proved that he had levels of marijuana in his system that strongly suggests drug use within 6 hours of setting sail. Those are facts. What do you base any defence of his actions on?