Any violations here?

With your NHMP hat on you did not have probable cause to take legal action based on the photos you provided.  
Malicious prosecution is a tort.  
Bottom line, there is nothing in the way of a violation of the law in the photos you provided and as such no probable cause exists.

obervantone wrote:With your NHMP hat on you did not have probable cause to take legal action based on the photos you provided.  

So I didn't have "articulable suspicion"?



.

No, you did not and since articulable suspicion is an even lower standard than probable cause you would be opening yourself the dept and state up for a lawsuit under Title 42 US Code 1983 but I understand your lack of knowledge in these things since reading the law puts you to sleep.

obervantone wrote:No, you did not and since articulable suspicion is an even lower standard than probable cause you would be opening yourself the dept and state up for a lawsuit under Title 42 US Code 1983 but I understand your lack of knowledge in these things since reading the law puts you to sleep.

I think I understand your complaints: the "evidence" is taken from still photographs—or, for that matter, a video. The wake, although present, isn't moving (as a wake should) in the photo, nor in this particular thread.



"Articulable suspicion", although a "low standard", remains the standard reason for a NHMP stop.



A "Terry Stop" is a "low standard" as well, but is still practiced in half of our states. Civil lawsuits aren't exactly pouring-out because of it—a good thing—except the ACLU would object (as usual).

Besides, it's other peoples money that's being spent.



..

It's-Not-News-Hawk wrote:
I think I understand your complaints: the "evidence" is taken from still photographs—or, for that matter, a video

ALL you have presented was one still photo...the first one...as "evidence"...the second photo, while it appears to be the same boat does not show a tow underway and only shows two people floating on a tube inches from the stern of a stationary boat.  If you believe that somehow that violates the law then you have no concept of boating or the law.

You claim that there is a video from which YOU are basing your statements...however what YOU presented as "evidence" was a single still photo of what appears to be a tow just getting underway and with no discernible violations of the law.

It's-Not-News-Hawk wrote:
"Articulable suspicion", although a "low standard", remains the standard reason for a NHMP stop.

While the statement is true, the facts of "Articulable suspicion" of a violation of the law do not exist in the photos that you presented as "evidence" so there is no basis for a "stop" or citation.

I might also point out that you STILL have NOT provided the RSA number that you believe is being violated and since tickets issued require the officer to identify the RSA number that is being violated put on that magic NHMP cap you claim to be using and tell us what the number that you are required to write down might be.

Give it a rest.

You guys both act like lawyers. How can two people drag something like this on for so long??

I keep asking the same question, what RSA is he quoting to find his violations?  He keeps repeating that violations occurred but continues to refuse to say what RSA he is basing his opinion on.  

He is noted for making things up and stating them as fact no matter how absurd if he believes it advances his agenda.  I am calling him out on it.   Harken back to his statement of "fact" that the Marine Patrol webpage says it only wanted emergency calls, no business calls.  Even after I posted a copy of the page he insisted that it was emergency calls only.

I do get tired of it, but when a lie is repeated often enough and left unchallenged, it becomes the truth which is ultimately his goal.

WHL wrote:You guys both act like lawyers. How can two people drag something like this on for so long??

I save my answers on the law for those times I need to get some sleep.

obervantone wrote:I keep asking the same question, what RSA is he quoting to find his violations?  He keeps repeating that violations occurred but continues to refuse to say what RSA he is basing his opinion on.  

He is noted for making things up and stating them as fact no matter how absurd if he believes it advances his agenda.  I am calling him out on it.   Harken back to his statement of "fact" that the Marine Patrol webpage says it only wanted emergency calls, no business calls.  Even after I posted a copy of the page he insisted that it was emergency calls only.

I do get tired of it, but when a lie is repeated often enough and left unchallenged, it becomes the truth which is ultimately his goal.

There's a difference between "refusing to say" and "not having the law book open in front me". (Or not having one at all).

In any case, SBONH ("Boat Club") changes the RSAs so frequently, I could be "made wrong" every boating season.



.

Well at least you are keeping the forum going. Not much else is happening. Do you think forums are going to be a thing of the past?

It's-Not-News-Hawk

obervantone wrote:
I keep asking the same question, what RSA is he quoting to find his violations?  He keeps repeating that violations occurred but continues to refuse to say what RSA he is basing his opinion on.  

He is noted for making things up and stating them as fact no matter how absurd if he believes it advances his agenda.  I am calling him out on it.   Harken back to his statement of "fact" that the Marine Patrol webpage says it only wanted emergency calls, no business calls.  Even after I posted a copy of the page he insisted that it was emergency calls only.

I do get tired of it, but when a lie is repeated often enough and left unchallenged, it becomes the truth which is ultimately his goal.

There's a difference between "refusing to say" and "not having the law book open in front me". (Or not having one at all).

There it is!  
You are guessing and assuming and have no knowledge of what the law actually says or how to check the language of the law but that does not stop you from proclaiming that there are violations when there are none, in fact if all of your "violations" were to be believed it could have the effect that Good Samaritans in the future would refused to help other boaters because of false concern of It's-Not-News-Hawk's fabricated "violations when in fact they are REQUIRED TO DO SO BY LAW unless it would result in damage or danger to their own vessels.

You should not be boating.

WHL Today at 7:20 am
Well at least you are keeping the forum going. Not much else is happening. Do you think forums are going to be a thing of the past?

To an extent.  
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter  Etc. have obviously cut into the participation and popularity of forums, but face it, the two primary users of this particular forum appear to be you and INNH (at least on the winnipesaukee thread, I don't even look at the others) and most of INNH's posts are about violations that don't exist...or oversized 25 foot boats....or boats traveling at the speed of light or wakes the size of tsunamis, none of which exist outside of his head.  
It gets old very quickly.  
As I stated prior, the only reason I bother is because false statements that he tends to make will be hanging around online for decades, and in the future if someone is doing research, they might actually take his "statements of fact" to be true instead of the made up crap that they actually are.

News Hawk wrote:
In any case, SBONH ("Boat Club") changes the RSAs so frequently, I could be "made wrong" every boating season.  



.

Neither SBONH nor WINNFABS (fake safety organization) can change RSAs.

obervantone wrote:There it is!  

You are guessing and assuming and have no knowledge of what the law actually says or how to check the language of the law but that does not stop you from proclaiming that there are violations when there are none, in fact if all of your "violations" were to be believed it could have the effect that Good Samaritans in the future would refused to help other boaters because of false concern of It's-Not-News-Hawk's fabricated "violations when in fact they are REQUIRED TO DO SO BY LAW unless it would result in damage or danger to their own vessels.

You should not be boating.

There it is!

'Hardly guessing when I have New Hampshire's own boating guide in front of me.

You should not be boating.

Just like a "Democrat":



Your ultimate goal is to silence those who object to today's version of "modern Winnipesaukee driving"?

red_hill wrote:Neither SBONH nor WINNFABS (fake safety organization) can change RSAs.

I think you knew what I meant.

"SAFE Boaters of New Hampshire" (SBONH) is 'way closer to a "fake safety organization"—if you can get by their "Statement of Mission".

It's-Not-News-Hawk
'Hardly guessing when I have New Hampshire's own boating guide in front of me.

The problem is the boating guide is NOT the law, it is a GUIDE and it is not published by the State of New Hampshire

Boat Ed is produced by Kalkomey Enterprises, Inc.

14086 Proton Road
Dallas, Texas 75244

You also  made the statement that you have refused to site the law regarding violations that you insist are present in your photo because you don't know "THE LAW":

Reading "THE LAW" puts me to sleep.

And don't plan to read "THE LAW".

There's a difference between "refusing to say" and "not having the law book open in front me". (Or not having one at all).

It's-Not-News-Hawk
Your ultimate goal is to silence those who object to today's version of "modern Winnipesaukee driving"?

Like those horrible people out with their families in their oversized 25 foot boats enjoying themselves and those psychopaths that come to their aid in the event they need help on the water?  No, that's your own personal agenda.

So tell us, since YOU witnessed this event and claim to have captured these horrendous violations on video that you did not share with the rest of the group, did you call the Marine Patrol to report those life threatening violations since they obviously raised a RED flag with you or show them the recording?  
Or did you call them to inform them that a tow was in progress in the event that there was a patrol boat in the area that might have been able to assist?  

I think we already know the answer to those questions.


Edit: I just heard a great line that IMMEDIATELY made me think of It's-Not-News-Hawk...I was going to save it but it is too good!
"...He hates fun and Jetskis and looks like he breaks out into hives every time a child smiles!"
(Credit Fitzy from Masshole Sports)

WHL wrote:You guys both act like lawyers. How can two people drag something like this on for so long??

IIRC, You were called to jury-duty in recent years.

"Dragging" is what lawyers do—and isn't that what you saw?



===============================================

"Fun" is what brought Danny and Erika to Lake Winnipesaukee's attention.

(And the rest of the country).



While I am no fan of Jet-Skis, I never get hives.



.

We just keep adding to the legitimate questions, based on HIS creation of this topic and thread that he keeps ignoring:

OO
I keep asking the same question, what RSA is he quoting to find his violations?  He keeps repeating that violations occurred but continues to refuse to say what RSA he is basing his opinion on.

and now we add these to the ignored questions list:

OO
So tell us, since YOU witnessed this event and claim to have captured these horrendous violations on video that you did not share with the rest of the group, did you call the Marine Patrol to report those life threatening violations since they obviously raised a RED flag with you or show them the recording?  
Or did you call them to inform them that a tow was in progress in the event that there was a patrol boat in the area that might have been able to assist?

but as I stated earlier:

I think we already know the answer to those questions.

A reasonable person would think that since it was HIS question about potential violations of the law in a still photograph that HE brought up in the first place, that he would be able to point to the specific law(s) that he claims were violated.

These are not hard or trick questions if he knew what he was talking about in the first place, but he doesn't, so he avoids and ignores.

If you can direct me to an updated list of RSAs that you'll accept, I'll give it a shot.



I didn't call the NHMP, and haven't for a couple of years. My criteria include a simultaneous viewing of a boating violation (or other hazardous activity) and an NHMP boat. Even then, the responses to my calls (responses that I can plainly see) are 'way too slow. Much of the time, the NHMP officer is running his engine(s), and can't hear loud-exhaust violations. Ocean-Racers in violation of speed limits are already out of sight.

One reason I started the thread is that the scene appeared to have a number of legal elements in it. Previously, I hadn't considered that a towing boat shouldn't also be towing another—having itself—a tube in tow. (And that a second view would show tubers without the required PFDs, and insufficient observers—also required).

Were any of the kids non-swimmers?

.

How can you even suggest that the photographs have "a number of legal elements" in it when you don't even know how to find the language of the law?  

Regarding your "criteria" for calling the Marine Patrol...that they already be in sight as YOU witness a "violation"... that is just BS!

You apparently were not concerned about whether any of the kids were "non swimmers" as you witnessed the event....recorded it....and posted it online...but failed to alert the Marine Patrol of your perceived concern!

You are full of BS!

obervantone wrote:How can you even suggest that the photographs have "a number of legal elements" in it when you don't even know how to find the language of the law?  

I'm good at Google—and can easily find laws—but I'd want the RSAs to be up-to-date (and acceptable) before continuing.

obervantone wrote:Regarding your "criteria" for calling the Marine Patrol...that they already be in sight as YOU witness a "violation"... that is just BS!

Not-in-sight, I make no calls on speed or noise complaints.

Somebody else is making those calls—not me.

obervantone wrote:You apparently were not concerned about whether any of the kids were "non swimmers" as you witnessed the event....recorded it....and posted it online...but failed to alert the Marine Patrol of your perceived concern!

You are full of BS!

So, I'm a bit slow...

Here is one of the major reasons that no one should believe anything that you post on face value...
First you write this:

I didn't call the NHMP, and haven't for a couple of years. My criteria include a simultaneous viewing of a boating violation (or other hazardous activity) and an NHMP boat.

Your very next post you write,regarding when you call the Marine Patrol:

Not-in-sight , I make no calls on speed or noise complaints

You are correct, you are a bit slow.

Just to be clear that using the NH Boating Guide as your source of THE LAW is incorrect, here is the disclaimer from the NH Boating Guide you keep referring to:

Information in this handbook does not replace what is specifi- cally legal for boating in New Hampshire, which is found in the
New Hampshire Statutes and federal law.

obervantone wrote:Here is one of the major reasons that no one should believe anything that you post on face value...
First you write this:

I didn't call the NHMP, and haven't for a couple of years. My criteria include a simultaneous viewing of a boating violation (or other hazardous activity) and an NHMP boat.

Your very next post you write,regarding when you call the Marine Patrol:

Not-in-sight , I make no calls on speed or noise complaints

You are correct, you are a bit slow.

I separate noise and speed calls from other, more interactive, violations.

I don't remember my last call, but one dispatcher seemed to think that particular call was not important. The NHMP officer who arrived at the scene just two minutes later (while the dispatcher was blabbing to me), seemed to think that moving a cluster of swimmers and kayaks from the middle of the channel was a good idea. That was at least two seasons ago.

On noise and speed violations, I'll only call if I see an NHMP who can readily engage the scofflaw. That rare event can happen at any time, although I don't remember the last time I called. It's been awhile.

What are we paying the NHMP for, if not Enforcement?

"Flying the flag" isn't Enforcement.



.

It's-Not-News-Hawk wrote:
I separate noise and speed calls from other, more interactive, violations.

Except that is not what you stated....and you have also stated that

I didn't call the NHMP

You were "concerned" enough to post still photos of the "violations of the law" that you witnessed...feigned "concern" for those poor children that obviously were being placed in "danger" and whom you say probably are not swimmers...but YOU DIDN'T CALL THE NHMP.

All you want to do is complain and make wild accusations, and you wonder why other forums that you have been on have failed or that the ones that are still around limit your access.

There were no violations, it is a photo of a Good Samaritan lending a hand to a disabled boater.  I do, however, understand how that might be something that is difficult for you to comprehend.

obervantone wrote:

All you want to do is complain and make wild accusations, and you wonder why other forums that you have been on have failed or that the ones that are still around limit your access.

There were no violations, it is a photo of a Good Samaritan lending a hand to a disabled boater.  I do, however, understand how that might be something that is difficult for you to comprehend.

^^^^ So true!!

obervantone wrote:

It's-Not-News-Hawk wrote:
I separate noise and speed calls from other, more interactive, violations.

Except that is not what you stated....and you have also stated that

I didn't call the NHMP

You were "concerned" enough to post still photos of the "violations of the law" that you witnessed...feigned "concern" for those poor children that obviously were being placed in "danger" and whom you say probably are not swimmers...but YOU DIDN'T CALL THE NHMP.

See below...

obervantone wrote:All you want to do is complain and make wild accusations, and you wonder why other forums that you have been on have failed or that the ones that are still around limit your access.

There were no violations, it is a photo of a Good Samaritan lending a hand to a disabled boater.  I do, however, understand how that might be something that is difficult for you to comprehend.

I think he sensed that he was running on empty, and called the second boat.

The "Good Samaritan" appeared on the scene even before the oversized boat came to a halt. My reason to video the boat was that he was throwing a big wake—too big for Winter Harbor.

Any PFD violations were questioned here at this forum, as the first shot didn't show PFDs on the tubers.

The second, did, but it was then hours after the boat was towed off.

Your objection (and red hill's "ditto") is pointless.



.

You are right about one thing...there is someone on this forum that is pointless...