Okay, so Barkus’ attorney is just doing his job, but it still stinks to high heavens!!  As I’ve said before.  Mr Barkus: you can throw the blood alcohol count out of the equation and what you’re left with is the total absense of common sense or intelligence.  You can either blame your decisions to operate the boat so negligently on booze or stupidity… your choice.

Isn’t it amazing the justice that money can buy?

Whatever happened to the traditional concept of the “Boat Launch”?

Obviously, Barkus was doing a non-traditional “boat launch” when he launched it into the air and onto the rocks.  It would have been even more colorful if he had turned north at the last minute and hit the long steel and concrete dock that extends out into the lake from Wayfarer’s park.  They would all have been in deep water and probably drowned. 

Fortunately,  that didn’t happen, but Barkus is still proclaiming that he is as innocent and guiltless as a novice nun in a cloister.  Of course, we all know that doesn’t wash.

Okay tazmanian, how much proof do you need??  Did he not operate a boat after dark at speeds great enough to send the craft airborne??  At the very least he is quilty of recklessness and failure to exercise due caution.  As the for the remaining charges; sure let’s go through the costly and lengthy process to ensure Mr. Barkus gets his “due process”.  Let’s let him wrangle every which way but loose.  You’ll have a heck of a time finding anyone to bet on Barkus’ innocence.  And if YOU think he is innocent, I’ll be watching for you to take a ride in his new boat next spring…after dark. BYOB.

Actually, the available evidence has been quite nicely summarized in the press since last August despite Barkus’s repeated efforts to suppress it by first demanding a gag order on statements by public officials to the media and then by threatening to sue all and sundry who have or might have knowledge about the accident, his medical treatment, his drinking in Lakeside, etc., etc. 

By the way, Taz, what is “dought?”  Do you mean doubt?  It’s quite amazing how many right wingers are challenged when it comes to such basic elements of knowledge as spelling.

Taz - his BAC was determined to be twice the legal limit; what more “evidence” do you need? The fact that his lawyer is trying to suppress this evidence should tell you that he is, at a minimum, guilty of DUI. If he is not guilty, as he has pled, why would he be afraid to allow any or all evidence into the courtroom??? He has a long, storied history of drinking. A real man would have pled guilty, taken his lumps, got some help with his problem, and save all of us taxpayers some money. Sadly, he’s an holier-than-thou Republican who believes he’s above the law. Remember his last DUI charge?

His BAC wasn’t “leaked” by the co atty’s office - it was included in the charging documents. Public record. Enough of the paranoia & conspiracy theories. If he looks like a drunk, walks like a drunk, drinks and drives like a drunk, then he’s a drunk.

Taz, you need to put the “actionable duty” quote into context. That line came from a court case involving the inept planning director; it was not referring to the county atty or his duties. The county atty, as an officer of the court, is much different than a rogue planning director.