Any violations here?

obervantone wrote:You keep changing the "facts".  
In THIS NEW photo, which is different from the initial photo, what I see is a stationary boat with two people lying on a tube floating maybe a foot off the stern of a stationary boat and "Mom" siting on the stern seat of the boat keeping a close eye on the kids.  

So in your latest photo, no. No evidence of the boat moving and no violation of any kind depicted in this latest photo.

obervantone wrote:Perhaps it was a video, but a video is not what you shared with us, so based on your two still photos depicting two different boating situations, no VIOLATION of the law and if you believe otherwise , as I asked previously, pleas provide the RSA number.

obervantone wrote:You asked about violation of the law based on a single still photo.  In that photo I gave you my opinion, then you showed a second still photo that depicted zero violations...then you claim it's all part of a video and that the "oversized" boat...what a 25, 27 footer, was leaving too large of a wake for a bay the size of Winter Harbor...
Putting your NHMP hat on you've decided to issue citations.
As a NHMP hat wearer you need to reference the RSA that has been violated, so based on the photos that YOU presented as evidence,(two still photos, not a video that you claim exists but you are the only one that saw) please share that RSA.

obervantone wrote:The flaws in your presentation are simple.
In the first photo the tow appears to be just getting underway.  Both the operator of the tow boat and vessel being towed appear to be checking the tow line, and I will speculate that the tube is being hauled back to the vessel being towed since the person on the tube appears to be pulling on the tow line and the person at the stern of the boat appears to adjusting her position to haul the tow line.  Therefore no violation of any law exists.
The second photo shows a stationary boat with two people floating on a tube.  PFDs are not required to be worn, neither is an observer required when floating on a tube.
Based on the photographic evidence you presented there are NO violations of the law.

Each person being towed behind a vessel must wear a USCG-approved life jacket.

It's-Not-News Hawk wrote:
Under "Required Equipment", page 28:

Each person being towed behind a vessel must wear a USCG-approved life jacket.

Now we start with a minimum of five violations!

Saf-C 404.07  Accident Assistance.
         (a)  In the event of a collision, accident or other casualty involving a vessel subject to this chapter, the operator, if he or she can do so without serious danger to his or her own vessel or persons aboard, shall render such assistance as shall be practicable and necessary to other persons affected by the collision, accident or casualty in order to save them from danger caused by the collision, accident or casualty.  The operator shall also give his or her name, address and identification of his or her vessel to any person injured, to the operator of any other vessel(s) involved and to the owner of any property damaged.
         (b)  Any person who complies with this section or who gratuitously and in good faith renders assistance at the scene of a vessel collision, accident or other casualty, without objection from any person assisted, shall not be liable for any action taken as a result of the rendering of assistance when he or she acted as any ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.

RSA 270-D-1 Definitions:
XIII. "Water skiing'' means a person being towed behind a moving motorboat on skis or on aquatic equipment designed for towing an aquaplane or any other device, including bare feet of a person, but excluding a person being towed on an inflatable tube or in another boat or motorboat.

obervantone wrote:Well there you go then!  You have spoken! The letter of the law be damned, It's-Not-News Hawk "Maintains it" so it must be so!  

obervantone wrote:You have yet to provide THE LAW in the form of an RSA that backs up your claim and without an RSA that backs up you claim, there is NO VIOLATION of the LAW, PERIOD.

obervantone wrote:Never heard of "malicious prosecution" and its repercussions have you.

Prosecutors who bring criminal cases without adequate justification may be sued for doing so, and may not be protected by prosecutorial immunity if the prosecutors' actions were egregious enough.

WHL wrote:So far for a big weekend, the lake is very quiet.  I know a lot of people already have their boats out but I had expected to see a little bit of traffic.  We did see one person putting their boat in.  

obervantone wrote:Wrong again!  

Prosecutors who bring criminal cases without adequate justification may be sued for doing so, and may not be protected by prosecutorial immunity if the prosecutors' actions were egregious enough.