Shark Court for Randy Emerald Charters Jupiter

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

There may be a jurisdiction issue....

The crux of the case is that the State says Emerald was within the three mile limit, and thus subject to state law making the feeding illegal. Emerald says it was not within the three mile limit, or, perhaps in the alternative, that the State cannot prove with precision beyond a reasonable doubt that they were within the three mile limit which would be a necessary element for a conviction.
 
Does anyone know how GPS units are certified for court, or if they even have to be certified? If you ever see someone surveying land you'll notice that the GPS unit is pretty large and has an external antenna. A unit small enough to sneak on is less accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There's always radar for the boat. The position of the divers would be impossible to determine.
 
The crux of the case is that the State says Emerald was within the three mile limit, and thus subject to state law making the feeding illegal. Emerald says it was not within the three mile limit, or, perhaps in the alternative, that the State cannot prove with precision beyond a reasonable doubt that they were within the three mile limit which would be a necessary element for a conviction.

You don't have the GPS of the site you use? That's sufficient to defeat the jurisdictional presumption.

The burden is on the state in the first instance to show it can meet its prime faciae case.

A demand should have been made for the gps coordinates- the method used to obtain them- and who and when they were produced. Then the Tech data (make model, year of production) for the instrument including its accuracy range and any training calibration and servicing - should have been provided in discovery.

Usually this is done in an omnibus motion Pretrial.
 
I can't wait for Randy to be found INNOCENT.
 
I can't wait for Randy to be found INNOCENT.
shark-randy.jpg

The plus side is that Randy is getting a lot of media coverage, which he can use to showcase how the media is wrong about sharks...and how perceptions of the public NEED to change.
He could never have afforded this much publicity for shark conservation!
 
Just read on Facebook that the trial is postponed until sometime in March. That sucks!
 
Well that sucks. Why someone can chum for shark fishing but not chum for shark feeding is beyond me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/
https://xf2.scubaboard.com/community/forums/cave-diving.45/

Back
Top Bottom