Florida Man Charged Over Failed Attempt To Cross Atlantic In Giant 'Hamster Wheel' (thedailybeast.com) 189
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Beast: A Florida marathoner is facing federal charges after the U.S. Coast Guard spotted him 70 nautical miles off Tybee Island, Georgia on Aug. 26, in a homemade Hydro Pod, as Hurricane Franklin bore down on the Eastern Seaboard. Reza Baluchi claimed he was headed to London in the human-powered vessel, a hamster wheel-like contraption which a newly filed criminal complaint describes as being "afloat as a result of wiring and buoys." When Coast Guard officers told Baluchi they were cutting short his "manifestly unsafe" voyage, Baluchi threatened to kill himself with a 12-inch knife if anyone tried to apprehend him, and claimed to have a bomb aboard, which turned out to be fake, according to the complaint. Three days later, Baluchi -- who authorities have intercepted in his Hydro Pod at least three times previously -- finally surrendered, the complaint states. Baluchi made national news for a 2021 attempt to get from Florida to New York in the Hydro Pod, but washed ashore 25 miles later.
Florida Man (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Florida Man (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know if this even makes the top ten craziest "Florida Man" stories this week.
If you exclude stories about one particular Florida Man, then the field becomes somewhat more open.
Re:Florida Man (Score:4, Interesting)
Florida has a very strong "sunshine law" that requires police to release information early and often. So men in other states are doing the same stupid stuff as Florida Man, you just don't hear about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Any time delay wouldn't really affect much, and doesn't make much logical sense.
A bigger reason is the fact that Florida has a larger population than the 15 least populated states combined, and people often look closer at absolute numbers without correcting for the population size.
All states release this stuff, all states have reporters that report on this stuff, and all states have been around for 64+ years.
If other states had the same amount and frequency, than like Florida you would still see a steady st
Re:Florida Man (Score:5, Insightful)
Any time delay wouldn't really affect much
Actually, it does. If it just happened today, it's news. If it happened three weeks ago, it isn't, so it's less likely to be reported.
Also, a delay allows more details to come out and often means it wasn't as stupid as first believed, or maybe a false accusation, or maybe sorted out in some other way that makes it a much less interesting story.
Re: (Score:2)
Any time delay wouldn't really affect much, and doesn't make much logical sense.
It isn't just the delay, it is the release of data at all. Florida police departments have websites where all arrests are listed, and even email lists where reporters get the daily list of new arrests. Getting any information from police many other states is difficult, and reportedly in Florida the data is not just available for the asking, it is actively disseminated.
https://www.tcpalm.com/story/o... [tcpalm.com]
Why is 'Florida Man' a thing, when 'Pennsylvania Man' (or Iowa Man or Ohio Man) isn't?
Gil Smart
March 25, 201
Re:Florida Man (Score:4, Informative)
His Wikipedia page also seems to suggest that he’s actually a resident of California, not Florida. His test runs with this “hydro pod” were to Catalina island and back on the Pacific coast, and they mention him training for a few years in Death Valley, in addition to running from one side of the US to the other, Forrest Gump style.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if this even makes the top ten craziest "Florida Man" stories this week.
I've never been able to get into the "let's make fun of the obviously mentally ill" stories.
Sure, they are newsworthy (or can be), but the whole laughing tone thing just grates the wrong way.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC from either here or maybe fark.com that someone did a study a few years back and "Florida man" is actually "Ohio man" if you wanna get into crazy stuff.
That said, as a Florida man I can say that yeah.... we got some crazy boys down here....
I'm curious about the pod, how does it work? (Score:2)
I mean, it's clear how it floats and how the occupant propels it, but how does one steer? Is there navigation equipment on board? How much food, water, etc. can it store? How does the occupant use the bathroom?
Probably there aren't any good answers to these questions since the occupant appears to be a loon, but I'm curious.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it's clear how it floats and how the occupant propels it, but how does one steer?
I'm imagining Wonder Wheel [youtube.com] from The Toy, in which case you'd steer by moving opposite sides at a different rate, I guess.
Is there navigation equipment on board? How much food, water, etc. can it store? How does the occupant use the bathroom?
If what I'm imagining is accurate, that would be none on all counts, but that's just a guess. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it's clear how it floats and how the occupant propels it, but how does one steer?
I'm imagining Wonder Wheel [youtube.com] from The Toy, in which case you'd steer by moving opposite sides at a different rate, I guess.
I don't think that would be possible with either the Wonder Wheel or this pod; the sides are always going to move together. But I suppose that if you shifted your weight to one end of the pod you would cause that side to sink more and the other side to sink less, which would alter the number of paddles in the water at each end, giving you more thrust on the side your weight is on.
Is there navigation equipment on board? How much food, water, etc. can it store? How does the occupant use the bathroom?
If what I'm imagining is accurate, that would be none on all counts, but that's just a guess. :-)
Yeah. I'd like to see an interview that answers these questions, rather than guess, though.
Come on (Score:4, Interesting)
If he's already given this a go a few times already, just let him try it. Maybe he just needs some corporate sponsorship, Red Bull or something. Dude could live stream it and probably go viral.
I mean, we already let plenty of people get into extreme sports all over the world and some of them die doing what they love. Let's see what this guy's got.
Re:Come on (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And in either case I wonder, why bother?
Re: (Score:2)
Because we're humans, and most of us do not think "oh, it's fun to watch these stupid people die". This "superhero" paddled for miles and miles in nice, calm water, but would have quickly called for an emergency rescue operation once the first 10ft wave would have toppled his contraption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Waves that high have unbelievable force. If the Atlantic was easily navigable in small ships, it would have been crossed routinely thousands of years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, many archaeologists are pretty sure that it actually was crossed multiple times, if not routinely, in small boats thousands of years ago. Sure, not very safely and with a high rate of having to resort to things like cannibalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Question is: did anyone ever make it back to tell the story?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Irish monks who sailed the Atlantic in ox-hide boats more than a thousand years ago came back to tell the tale. It's hard to tell where they actually made it to though. It's believed they may have made it all the way to Newfoundland. In any case we know that Vikings made it to Newfoundland a thousand years ago and came back to tell the tale.
Re: (Score:3)
The idiot with his hodgepodge sub skillfully skipped around all applicable laws to make his disaster happen. He registered in the Bahamas, i.e. he sailed under some flag, in which many laws to protect people do not exist. He called his passengers "mission specialists" in order to avoid the better protections for passengers.
Had he started off like the paddle dude, the coast guards would have stopped him just the same.
Re: (Score:2)
People do things like trying to swim the Atlantic. Even with a pacer boat, that seems even more dangerous, but the coast guard doesn't stop them. People also set out to sea in all sorts of other things that seem no more reckless than this without the same kinds of problems. I know it was 70+ years ago, but the Kon-Tiki comes to mind. It just sort of seems like this is a double standard.
Again? (Score:5, Informative)
Google the guy's name, and you'll find out he been at this for years. He's been intercepted multiple times in attempts to reach Puerto Rico, Bermuda, and New York, and has threatened suicide before and was under a "Captain of the Port Order" to not repeat the stunt without a support vessel. This may explain the Coast Guard's frustration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but a lot of the crap people love to see isn't feasible/insurable/funded.
Having a support vessel with even just a skeleton crew is expensive, you'll be paddling across the Atlantic, that will take you months if not years to complete. Food, water and sanitary provisions for 3-4 people, fuel, transport vessels back and forth for both people and supplies. This is an insane effort which would cost millions per month.
Items to note. (Score:5, Informative)
then up to 24 nautical miles is another zone where the country can protect rights and you can be prosecuted for most crimes.
then out to 200 nautical miles is an economic exclusive zone where the USA has very little legal control its purpose is for conserving, exploring, managing or exploiting natural resources This is the reason china is building those islands and then trying to enforce sovrenty on. In this case they coast guard can still board the vessel and also require that certain safety equipment is equiped and those are the charges this marathoner is now facing after he refused those actions. jurisdiction out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers), he was at 70 nautical miles.
Uhhh, why? (Score:2)
I'm not Libertarian by any stretch (Score:3)
But if you're not harming someone else, don't you have the right to take stupid risks? Maybe have a pre-signed waiver on file directing that no search and rescue attempt should be made if you get into trouble or disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if you're not harming someone else
The US Coastguard has specifically said he should do this with a support vessel. That US Coastguard is responsible for search and rescue when things go wrong. He's not in trouble for being stupid, he's in trouble for ignoring a direct "Captain of the Port Order" - which is a federal crime.
Just like you're free to be an idiot, run out on the street and try and commit suicide by getting hit by a car, but if you ignore a police request to get your stupid arse off the highway you'll be in trouble.
I'm sorry (Score:2)
I thought this was AMERICA.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, the deep state polices the deep ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
He's mentally ill or an idiot. Either way he does not have the right to leave his rotting corpse for others to deal with.
If he's actually mentally ill then we as a society have agreed that we help such people when we can and intervene when they're in the middle of actively killing themselves.
Lack of a mental healthcare system (Score:3)
Photo of the "watercraft" (Score:4, Interesting)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7EKVleWEAcDXQV?format=jpg&name=large
Re:Photo of the "watercraft" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Photo of the "watercraft" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That looks a lot more seaworthy than I was expecting. In fact it looks like the only thing missing is a spot of dazzle camouflage. All that red and white makes it far too easy for the pesky coastguard to spot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that confirms it. He would have to have been wearing a diaper.
freedumb (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why are Americans so opposed to any government authority protecting people from themselves?
Because their definition of "freedumb" is "I get to do whatever I want and don't have to face any consequences for my actions."
Re: (Score:2)
Show me where this man said he could never down at sea.
Re: (Score:2)
When he attempted this stunt a second time.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you've never visited Minnesota in January.
Oh. No, we provide shelters, clothes, coats, boots, and food for them here.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is only a hundred years away from having significant frontier areas and people who immigrated there specifically because of that, so there's a national zeitgeist that values independence and self-sufficiency. Also, cold war ideology emphasized that national myth versus the socialism and central planning of their opponents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Change of tactics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's illegal for American non-military vessels to be armed. Your crew can be armed, but not your vessel. If the gun is mounted, it's illegal.
As far as Florida man goes (Score:2)
Why stop him? (Score:2)
Re:Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:5, Informative)
However, I'm not comfortable with the Coast Guard implying that they have authority to grant or deny people access to the open ocean based only on their assessment of danger to the person they're dealing with. That's a bit "nanny-statish".
If you're in US territorial waters (and maybe even within the US economic zone waters; not sure), the US Coast Guard enforces all sorts of regulations about what sorts of vessels can be used and how they must be equipped. You have to have life jackets, a throwable lifesaving device, fire extinguishers, etc. They also enforce rules of navigation, exclusion zones, and more.
This is no different from traffic regulations on public streets, including regulations that require vehicles to meet safety standards, operators and passengers to wear seat belts, operators to be licensed, vehicles to be insured, etc.
I suppose it's "nanny-statish", but it prevents a lot of problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Easy solution though, next time he needs to find someone willing to run a charter out into International Waters and drop him and his hamster wheel off.
Of course, then the powers that be might end up charging the charter captain with all sorts of things.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I'm not comfortable with the Coast Guard implying that they have authority to grant or deny people access to the open ocean based only on their assessment of danger to the person they're dealing with. That's a bit "nanny-statish".
If you're in US territorial waters (and maybe even within the US economic zone waters; not sure), the US Coast Guard enforces all sorts of regulations about what sorts of vessels can be used and how they must be equipped. You have to have life jackets, a throwable lifesaving device, fire extinguishers, etc. They also enforce rules of navigation, exclusion zones, and more.
This is no different from traffic regulations on public streets, including regulations that require vehicles to meet safety standards, operators and passengers to wear seat belts, operators to be licensed, vehicles to be insured, etc.
I suppose it's "nanny-statish", but it prevents a lot of problems.
That's because the USCG is expected to come to the aid of any vessel in distress (whether they are mandated to or not I do not know) much like the RNLI in the UK. So it's fair that they get to set a few rules.
Anyone who thinks its "nanny-statish" needs to put down the crack pipe.
Re:Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the road you are are danger not just to yourself but also others if your vehicle is not safe, and not just a danger but also can be a significant hold up or delay
The US Coast Guard is responsible for rendering aid. They have to come to your rescue, even at great expense to themselves, and for free. So they obviously are interested in minimizing such occurrences.
Maybe they should have excluded ultra-light seacraft, but the rules were written with an expectation that you won't try to travel across the ocean in a bathtub.
Re: (Score:2)
They have to come to your rescue, even at great expense to themselves,
Only in US territorial waters, which this wasn't.
Re:Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:5, Informative)
The ocean is a vast place and a shared resource. You can't count on people with special training and special equipment to be able to get to someone in trouble quickly enough in an emergency. So everyone has a responsibility to help everyone else.
For that reason, you also have the legal responsibility of making sure your vessel is equipped in a manor that minimizes the chances of somebody else having to rescue you. Further your vessel can't be a hazard to other vessels. It has to be lit in specific ways as one example.
In fact, there are all kinds of rules about how boats must be equipped, not just for safety but even for things like how waste disposal is handled. The Coast Guard can stop and inspect random boats for no reason at all. They don't need any probably cause. I don't know if the Coast Guard was strictly within their jurisdiction or not, but the guy was clearly violating multiple maritime regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Coast Guard is responsible for rendering aid.
The articles don't have much information in them, but I have a strong suspicion this guy didn't even have a support vessel with him, which are expected with this kind of very-likely-to-fail attempt. Thus the Coast Guard's liability and probability for assisting aid was extremely high. If he had a support vessel then his attempt could be done in a reasonable and safe manner, but I can't find information regarding that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only the coast guard. International law includes a duty to render assistance for any ship at sea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
An accident on the ocean is different. It's not just huge cargo ships out there. There's a good chance that a couple on a 30 ft sailboat never see him in the middle of the night, - he's not li
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about territorial waters. 70 miles at sea is still within the Economic Exclusion Zone, where they still have authority. That 200 miles is a UN convention going back several decades.
Re: (Score:2)
>> That's a bit "nanny-statish".
Nope.
Putting yourself in danger also endangers other people (who try to save you from killing yourself, no less)
Even worse, it can potentially distract emergency services like coast guard from real emergencies by monopolizing their resources for weeks to follow a suicidal narcissist.
It's simply irresponsible to do stunts without easy and simple safety measures, like having a boat follow you, and/or planning your stunt with authorities beforehand....
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't suicide be allowed? He wasn't threatening to harm anyone else by doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see if police start apprehending Indy 500 drivers or skydivers. Or people who live in San Francisco.
All provably more dangerous than this experimental boat.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the police arrest trained professionals on a closed track?
Or trained licensed professionals jumping from planes in designated areas with permits to fly?
San Francisco is already its own punishment. No need to arrest. (Yes, I lived there for quite a while).
The odds of this guy surviving a cross Atlantic trip are zero. Absolutely zero. No chance. In comparison countless skydivers and Indy 500 drivers survive their activity every day.
This crazed idiot is going to die in the ocean, cause trouble in
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with a nanny state.
Beyond that, there's a general understanding that if someone's about to die in some bit of the wilderness, some institution will try to rescue them. Even if they entered into it with eyes open, accepted the danger, signed the paperwork, whatever. Preventing people from doing really stupid stunts that will almost certainly require later rescue is pretty reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:2)
Re: Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:3)
I'm fairly certain he can do it a fifth time granted:
- He registers his vessel.
- He has a support vessel. (As they mentioned.)
- He allows boarding.
- He not attempt to commit suicide / make bomb threats.
His actions may have already compromised his ability to register or try again without being seen as mentally compromised.
Re:Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:3)
200 miles from shore isn't international law. It might be unilateral US action though.
Re:Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:5, Informative)
If he isn't sailing under any countries flag, it looks like anyone can stop him.
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
"Stateless vessels cannot benefit from the freedom of the high seas because that freedom belongs only to States, not to individual vessels."
"Because stateless vessels enjoy the protection of no State, all States may exercise jurisdiction over such vessels."
If he is sailing under a US flag, the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over him
https://stopillegalfishing.com... [stopillegalfishing.com]
He could've registered it under a flag of convenience and than he likely would've been fine, as long as he didn't make any threats. Although, admitting he is a US citizen could've somehow given them authority anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should have just put this idiot into the path of the hurricane and let darwin sort it out.
And if a fat person calls an ambulance for a heart attack the paramedics should make them run 5miles to a hospital?
There's a difference between wilfully ignoring idiots as a bystander and proposing that an organisation responsible for ocean rescue actively get someone killed. Please think before you post.
Re: (Score:3)
And this is the Coast Guard's dilemma in such a case. I'm sure they would just happily have let the man go on his way (and to his doom), but they have mandate to actually save people at risk of death on open water, whether they like it or not. If they hadn't, then yo ucan be sure variations on "Coast Guard allows man to die in a hurricane" would have been splashed across all the front pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should have just put this idiot into the path of the hurricane and let darwin sort it out.
And if a fat person calls an ambulance for a heart attack the paramedics should make them run 5miles to a hospital?
This is a false equivalence.
Re: (Score:2)
He wasn't trying to commit suicide until the Coast Guard thought it would be fun to harass the guy.
And he was in international waters, where the USCG has no jurisdiction.
So we now have nanny-state government on the high seas.
I hope he beats the bogus charges.
As much as we might decide that he is a noble innocent being harassed by the deep state, these stunt people end up costing the guvmint a lot of money.
Who foots the bill for the US Navy and others that tried to find Stockton Rush and the other people killed - in international waters?
Who foots the bill for Trevor Jacob's stupid stunt of deliberately crashing a plane for Youtube views.
Perhaps rather than prosecute these intrepid heros, we should just let them meet their ends bravely and foolishly.
Re: (Score:3)
How is he being "reckless" with anyone's safety but his own?
Re:Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:5, Insightful)
How is he being "reckless" with anyone's safety but his own?
He could have been in shipping lanes which, unless I'm mistaken, ships would not be expecting to find a guy in a hamster wheel in their path.
If it was right before the hurricane as the article mentioned, he could have been blown into shipping lanes or into some structure on shore.
Let's assume he made it into the open waters (beyond the 200 mile limit) and had a problem. Did he have some type of radio to call for help? If so, a search and rescue would have to be mounted to find him which could potentially cost millions of dollars. If he didn't have a radio and a relative contacted the Coast Guard, again, a search and rescue would be mounted costing millions of dollars.
There's a reason folks like Evil Kenevil, his son, and others like him, don't just randomly go and do something. They spend time, and their own money, planning out what they want to do, and coordinate with local authorities. They have safety protocols in place and teams of people working with them.
Remember Lawnchair Larry [wikipedia.org]? Wasn't it funny when he decided to launch himself into the sky and not notify anyone? How much fun it must have been to be a pilot and come across some guy floating near your path. Or the electrical company which had to remove his contraption from the power lines he go tangled in rather than being fried and knocking out power.
People like to think, "It's only me, who's it going to harm?" because they don't realize there are others around them who might be affected. This is like the multitude of zombies wandering around with their heads down looking at a two inch screen and everyone else having to move around them because of lack of situational awareness. My favorite are the ones who walk into a store, let's say a grocery store, and come to halt just inside the door to check their phone. No, don't bother moving to the side or walking futher inside. There's no one else around.
Re:Some interesting moral questions here. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, a complex issue. One that does not seem to merit Federal criminal charges so much as a, "please stop".
Re: (Score:3)
One that does not seem to merit Federal criminal charges so much as a, "please stop".
He's not facing federal criminal charges for being an idiot on a hamster wheel in the ocean. He's facing federal criminal chargers for *NOT* obeying when the US Coast Guard did say please stop.
That is the federal crime he is charged with. 46 USC 70036(b)(1) - Violation of a Captain of the Port Order, and 18 USC 2237(a)(2)(A) - Obstruction of boarding.
Re: (Score:2)
In principle, sure, but I don't think a guy in a tube is going to present much of a hazard for shipping or shoreline structures.
In principle, how would you feel if you were the captain of a ship, and you crushed the life out of a person ??
A parallel might be drawn to Railway engineers, half of whom have killed people with their trains. They often suffer PTSD, and other mental issues. https://www.inquirer.com/trans... [inquirer.com]
There is a lot more to consider than just the guy in the hamster wheel. At the same time, we have to let people do stupid s--t as part of being a free society. Remember those famous films of failed attempts to
Re: (Score:3)
<quote><p>A parallel might be drawn to Railway engineers, half of whom have killed people with their trains. They often suffer PTSD, and other mental issues</p></quote> Half of all railway engineers have killed people with their trains? I feel as though I would have heard more about these crazy engineers and their murder trains.
People try to beat the trains at intersection, Trucks with lowboys try to cross and get stuck. People commit suicide by hopping in front of one.
With all the mass of a train, it can take a long way to stop. So the standing rule is if the engineer sees they are going to hit something, apply the brakes and avert your vision, because it is going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd hardly blame that repeal for the policy problem. Blame his 1967 act in CA. This was at the beginning of the war between the institutionalizers and the rehabilitation people. The rehab people won. Reagan's removal of funding in 1981 had no real impact on that - the policy would have stayed the same. The institutions were mostly being closed, people dumped onto the streets and instead incarcerated in the regular prisons.
Went from "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" to Shawshank, or pick your prison fil
Re: (Score:2)
How is he being "reckless" with anyone's safety but his own?
How much fun it must have been to be a pilot and come across some guy floating near your path. Or the electrical company which had to remove his contraption from the power lines he go tangled in rather than being fried and knocking out power.
People like to think, "It's only me, who's it going to harm?" because they don't realize there are others around them who might be affected. This is like the multitude of zombies wandering around with their heads down looking at a two inch screen and everyone else having to move around them because of lack of situational awareness. My favorite are the ones who walk into a store, let's say a grocery store, and come to halt just inside the door to check their phone. No, don't bother moving to the side or walking futher inside. There's no one else around.
This. Outfits like the Coast Guard put their people in harms way every time they have to rescue someone. Considering that Reza Baluchi threatened suicide and claimed he had a bomb and would blow up anyone that interfered, we can make an inference of mental instability as well as likely death if he continued his hamster wheel journey.
So the Coast guard had multiple reasons for authoritative cancelling of his stupid publicity seeking quest, while putting themselves in danger.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember Lawnchair Larry [wikipedia.org]? Wasn't it funny when he decided to launch himself into the sky and not notify anyone? How much fun it must have been to be a pilot and come across some guy floating near your path. Or the electrical company which had to remove his contraption from the power lines he go tangled in rather than being fried and knocking out power.
People like to think, "It's only me, who's it going to harm?" because they don't realize there are others around them who might be affected.
Pretty much describes every libertarian.
I remember Lawnchair Larry.
Adelir AntÃnio de Carli (Padre Baloeiro) [wikipedia.org] did not.
Re: Obstruction of boarding? Fuck off. (Score:2)
70 nautical miles, which is well within the EEZ.
Re: (Score:2)
70 nautical miles, which is well within the EEZ.
EEZ is irrelevant. It only pertains to economic exploitation, such as fishing or mining.
Re: (Score:2)
it's the Coast Guard with violating 4th amendment rights of a US citizen
It's every border and every airport where we've seemingly agreed that certain 4th amendment rights don't apply. 70 miles is also within 100 miles of the border. If you have a problem with it, we need to solve it everywhere - not just at sea.
And that's ignoring the exclusive economic zone under UN convention, which is 200 miles from shore.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop Arming Bears. (Score:2)
B.S.
Stop Arming Bears.
Re:what the actual fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)
A big issue, is that it appears he was not operating under any flag in international water. It looks like under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,
" stateless vessels – cannot claim the protection of any State. Stateless vessels cannot benefit from the freedom of the high seas because that freedom belongs only to States, not to individual vessels. "
They stop people that suddenly start saying they are suicidal because most of the time, people suddenly experiencing suicidal ideation is due to mental illness, and because of that mental illness their decision to commit suicide can't be trusted to be rational, sane, and without coercion without investigation. The vast majority of people that seriously consider suicide fully recover and go back to being productive members of society and having healthy family relationships.
The vast majority have decided that they are OK giving the state the power to temporarily detain, force examination, and treatment in an emergency metal health crises where someone is an immediate danger to themselves or others due to mental illness.
I am also fine with it, as long as there are very serious checks and balances to make sure the absolute minimum of force is used against the individual for the absolute minimum amount of time, with very serious penalties that are heavily enforced for any doctor/cop that violates the rules. I think the current protections are not good enough, and even the current rules are not actually enforced enough.
I also believe that someone of sound mind that isn't being coerced in any way, should be able to kill themselves without interference from the state. I believe that they should also be able to obtain the means to do it quickly and painlessly, or even have someone kill you. I am completely fine with the government forcing people to prove to a neutral and impartial court that they are sane and free of coercion. They also shouldn't be able to use the desire to commit suicide as evidence in and of itself that they are not sane.
I am unsure on how much outside forces directly pushing someone towards suicide but not actual threats of violence, should be allowed. There could be a lot of pressure and "technically legal threats" against people to get them to commit suicide, especially elderly people. Like a 90 year old living with a child being told they are getting to be too much work, are going to need to be put in a home, and learning their grandchild is going to have to leave college because their child wants to make sure they are in a very nice home. Is the 90 year old actually making a decision free of coercion and undue influence, if they don't want to die for themselves but to help their family. They could be making a rational decision that their quality of life is bad and will only get worse, so they want to die before things get too bad. Or, the family could be pressuring them, potentially even subconsciously. Plenty of people kill their parents for money, how do you make sure people don't manipulate people into suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. That pile of shit wouldn't have even caused a single RPM drop on a big ship. The props would have just churned the whole thing to mincemeat and not even slowed down.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're rooting for the little guy, yet you're not happy that the coast guard took care of him better than they took care of the rich guy?
They didn't harass him: they saved themselves the trouble and expense of having to go looking for the idiot later after his family got worried and asked them to mount a difficult rescue mission.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was the bomb threat that netted him the federal charge
Why are you thinking anything rather than reading the actual federal charges which you can get to by clicking 2 links - one to TFA and the second to the federal complaint? Do you also do your own vaccine research on Facebook?
He's charged with violating a Captain of the Port Order - which they previously required him to travel with a support vessel, and for Obstruction of Boarding of the US Coastguard.
The threats of harm to himself are not a federal crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Suicidal idiot goes into ocean to leave his rotting corpse for other innocent unrelated strangers to deal with when he washes ashore or a boat finds him. And he has that right? No.
I'm one of the most libertarian people on this site and I'm glad they pulled his dumb selfish ass out of the water. Again.