Tourist almost split in two by boat while snorkelling off the coast of the Bahamas
Brent Slough, from Texas, is in critical condition at an ICU in Miami, Florida, after suffering multiple fractures and deep gashes in the horrifying incident on June 30.
Mr Slough was snorkelling approximately six metres off the shore of Exuma when a speedboat, captained by two men, barrelled through the waters and into the father of two before taking off, CBS Texas reported.
The 42-year-old was with his wife, Whitney, and their two daughters, who witnessed the grisly hit-and-run.
'I felt like a thump thump, and I was like, 'did I just get hit by a boat?'' Mr Slough told the outlet. 'My left leg wasn't functioning, and I felt like something was wrong with my lower body.'
Mr Slough was nearly split in two by the powerful blades that struck just below his buttocks.
'His bottom was almost completely detached from his legs,' a horrified Whitney said.
The wounded father managed to pull himself above water and saw the boat that allegedly struck him speeding away from the frightening scene.
'So I surfaced and I looked to my right and I see two guys in a boat and one of them looks back and they just keep on going,' he said.
Mr Slough's older daughter rushed to her dad's aid and pulled him to shore using a float, according to the outlet.
He was rushed to a hospital on Exuma before being transferred roughly 30 minutes away to a medical centre in Nassau.
The care at both facilities was considered 'insufficient,' and Mr Slough was airlifted on an ambulance jet to Miami, where he went into surgery before being hospitalised in the ICU, according to a GoFundMe set up for his wife.
'The doctor told me, 'Please get to a hospital in Miami, you need to get to the US for something this traumatic,'' Mr Slough said.
Doctors are concerned that Slough's injuries are still life-threatening, fearing the lacerations can become infected.
Whitney Slough left her daughters back in the Bahamas to travel with her husband to the US.
'It breaks my heart because we're not on vacation together, and we are not with our girls at the same time,' she told CBS Texas. 'I'm so grateful that he's alive.'
Mr Slough graduated from West Point before becoming an Army Ranger in his six-year military service, where he served one tour in Iraq.
The determined wife is returning to her children to assist authorities in finding the boaters she believes are aware of hitting her husband.
'Oh, they're going to be found,' she said. 'It's against the law to be within 200 feet of the shore. Brent was about 20 feet out … I just wish they would turn themselves in, but if they don't turn themselves in, then we have to find them.'
Whitney credited God for saving her husband, despite his gruesome injuries.
'This was God getting us through this 100 per cent,' she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 minutes ago
- ABC News
Newspaper delivery driver sentenced to home detention over fatal hit-and-run in Darwin
A Darwin newspaper delivery driver who drove and then reversed over three people late at night, as they lay sleeping on the road has avoided time in prison for fleeing the scene. International student Aryan Aryan, 22, earlier pleaded guilty to one count of hit-and-run causing death and two counts of hit-and-run causing serious harm, and was sentenced in the Darwin Local Court on Thursday. Family members of the victims watched on — some in court and others from Maningrida and Alice Springs, connecting via video link — as the court sentenced Aryan to four months' home detention and a suspended prison term of seven months. The court heard Aryan was delivering newspapers on Trower Road in the Darwin suburb of Brinkin about 1:50am on April 19 this year, when he struck the woman and two men with the vehicle he was driving. Acting Judge Giles O'Brien-Hartcher said Aryan had then reversed over the victims, illuminating them in his headlights to see what he had hit. Acting Judge O'Brien-Hartcher described the victims' injuries as "horrible, sickening and tragic". The woman died in hospital from her injuries, and the incident also contributed to the subsequent death of one of the men. Acting Judge O'Brien-Hartcher accepted that the vehicle strike was accidental and Aryan was "not driven by malice". "I think it is the case that people sleeping on the road surface gives rise to significant risk to themselves," he said. Rather than offering the victims help or calling police after the collision, the court heard Aryan had driven away. It was only 40 minutes later that he returned to the scene and called authorities, after ringing his father and a colleague. The court heard Aryan had only confessed he had been the driver involved in the strike when handing himself in to police 12 hours later. "Those actions, while not reasonably justified, were informed by shock and upset at what happened," Acting Judge O'Brien-Hartcher said. During sentencing, the judge considered a victim impact statement provided by one of the victim's families, sharing the "intense sorrow and grief" they felt, along with character references prepared by Aryan's employer and the Sikh Association of the NT. Acting Judge O'Brien Hartcher also accepted that Aryan had shown remorse and insight into his offending. He said the victims' outcomes would not have been any better if Aryan had called police sooner.
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
Zakia Bashi Qamber fronts Adelaide court in alleged hit-and-run case
Chilling CCTV that allegedly shows a car being driven by a mother striking and killing a woman in a hit-and-run crash has surfaced, as the accused faces court six months on from the incident. Zakia Bashi Qamber fronted Adelaide Magistrates Court on Thursday, charged with causing the death of the 40-year-old woman in the early morning crash in January. Grainy CCTV footage shows a vehicle, allegedly driven by Ms Qamber, approaching the woman with headlights piercing the darkness. The woman suffered serious injuries in the hit on Kinkaid Rd in Elizabeth East and died at the scene. Ms Qamber is charged with causing death by the careless use of a vehicle and leaving the scene of an accident after causing death. She was due to enter pleas to the charges on Thursday but Michael Woods, appearing for Ms Qamber, asked for an eight-week adjournment as he needed more time to consume material. Mr Woods said he was still waiting on body-worn camera footage from the scene of the crash, the confirmation of biological material on the undercarriage of the vehicle and a post-mortem toxicological report. He told the court he might consider a no case to answer application after reviewing the material. 'It appears there is a large amount of disclosure outstanding,' Magistrate Lynette Duncan said. She listed September 18 for the next answer charge hearing, where Ms Qamber is expected to enter her pleas. An interpreter stood with Ms Qamber in the dock and spoke softly to her throughout proceedings. Ms Qamber has been granted bail and left the court with a supporter. She has no prior criminal history.
ABC News
2 days ago
- ABC News
Legal experts cast doubt on Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch over alleged Epstein letter
US law experts say Donald Trump faces significant hurdles in his $10 billion case against Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal over reports he sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a sexually suggestive drawing. The lawsuit, filed in the Florida Supreme Court, claims the Wall Street Journal "failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter and failed to explain how this letter was obtained". But experts say defamation cases, brought forward by public figures, are notoriously hard to prove in the US, and they rarely make it to a jury. The paper has said it was prepared to "vigorously" defend its journalism. If the case does go to trial, Mr Trump may be forced to provide information about the nature of his relationship with the convicted paedophile and billionaire, and the Journal may be asked to show how it obtained the letter or proved its existence. So, how likely is it Mr Trump will get his day in court? Winning or settling a defamation case in the US can be difficult, mostly due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It is even more difficult for a public figure like Donald Trump to win a defamation lawsuit, said Harry Melkonian, a media lawyer and honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre. "It is extremely difficult and intentionally made so for public figures to bring defamation claims in the US," he said. "By definition, the US president is the most public of public figures." Shawn Trier, a constitutional law expert at Australian National University, agreed. "A case in the early 1960s during the civil rights movement found that even if you have factual information that's incorrect, unless you prove a term called actual malice — that you knew it was wrong or didn't care — it would be really hard for that to be proven," he said. Actual malice is knowledge that the material published was false, or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. "In the case of the Wall Street Journal, it would literally have to be the case that they knew the letter was false or knew it didn't exist or they had a really good reason to suspect it was forged but ignored it," Dr Tier said. Dr Melkonian said the Supreme Court set this standard for public figures to prevent self-censorship by the media. "They also felt that public figures are pretty well equipped to respond publicly to undo any harm, and Trump can get on TV any night and say this story is false, they made it up," he said. "So when you combine all those things, it makes for an extremely difficult case, and quite honestly, I've read the complaint and I think they will have difficulties even getting this complaint to court." In Australia, defamation law is "relatively straightforward", Dr Melkonian said. If a publisher prints something that a person says isn't true, the publisher must prove on the balance of probabilities that it is. But American law is the opposite, Dr Melkonian said; the public figure has to prove the story is false. "Trump has to prove they either knew it was false or they harboured serious doubts and did it anyway," Dr Melkonian said. "And he has to prove that by an exaggerated standard of proof." But US courts rarely find that actual malice exists, and there has only been one case, which was between Time Magazine and the Israeli defence minister in 1984. Court documents show that Mr Trump will argue that such a letter did not exist and the two journalists who wrote the story "possessed information and had access to information that showed their statements were false." It does not say, however, what that information was. "The mere fact that he told them 'it's false' before they printed it isn't enough because if that was, you could stop anything from being printed," Dr Melkonian said. From the legal documents, it appears Mr Trump will also argue that the circulation of the story created further damage to his reputation. "And given the timing of the defendants' article, which shows their malicious intent behind it, the overwhelming financial and reputational harm suffered by President Trump will continue to multiply," the court documents said. But Dr Melkonian said, "he's already said it's false, and he certainly has made more publicity saying it's false than the Wall Street Journal got with the article." Dr Melkonian said public figures sometimes took steps like Mr Trump's to "make it clear to the public that they believe the article is a falsehood". "Donald Trump has gotten a lot of publicity out of filing this case, and that may be the vindication that he wants now the public knows he is taking it to court to prove he didn't do it," he said. A $10 billion award would be the largest finding of defamation damages in history, dwarfing already-massive cases in recent US proceedings. These include a $1.5 billion judgement against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Fox News's settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. "It's unlikely he has a legal case against the Wall Street Journal, but it probably helped him politically," Dr Trier said. "He likes to do this a lot, to say 'look how I've been treated, it's so bad I'm suing.'" The Wall Street Journal has indicated it will defend itself. "We have full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," a spokesperson for publisher Dow Jones said in a statement. Yesterday, the White House removed the Wall Street Journal from the pool of reporters covering Trump's upcoming weekend trip to Scotland. "As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to various US media outlets. "Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board. Every news organisation in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible." While the Murdoch-owned media company has the power to fight such a case, many do not. "It could have an insidious effect on journalism and free speech," Dr Trier said. "There should be early dismissals [in defamation cases like these], but there are still costs, and smaller organisations that get threats like this are more likely to back down. "It raises a lot of concerns, and Trump has been very unique in using his office to carry out these retributions against the media."
