7 ms·

Yeah I was curious what law is actually being broken by doing this? > [US Coast Guard] officers determined Baluchi was conducting a manifestly unsafe voyage,"

Yeah I was curious what law is actually being broken by doing this? > [US Coast Guard] officers determined Baluchi was conducting a manifestly unsafe voyage," the criminal complaint says. Since when is it illegal to do things that are unsafe in America? Why can I own a gun and fireworks and liquor and gas stoves and toxic chemicals then? > Officials said he refused to step off the vessel and threatened to kill himself. He also claimed that he had a bomb on board, according to court papers. Sounds about right for Floridaman vibes.

bell-cot 3y ago
As a generality, "unsafe voyage" is a reasonable thing to outlaw. Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too. Plus too-trusting friends & family who are along for the ride on their SS Davey Jones, collisions with other boats, cleaning up the wreckage and oil slicks, etc., etc. Vs. this guy's "water wheel" seems to fairly-mostly avoid those issues, if the CG could just say "YOYO" and forget about him.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too This sounds like something adults should be allowed to opt out of. As long as the rest of us can be mature enough to not call for heads when some of them inevitably die, there shouldn’t be moral hazard. (Or maybe you’re rescued but you foot the entire bill.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - criddell 3y ago
    Adults who are rational and mentally healthy, sure. If a person were on top of a tall building wearing a bed sheet as a cape, letting them jump would be a similar moral issue in my eyes. If this person was warned that he would not be rescued and the next day sent out a distress signal, do you really think coast guard and other agencies would ignore the call for help?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > do you really think coast guard and other agencies would ignore the call for help? Arizona's stupid motorist law, which "states that any motorist who becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway may be charged for the cost of their rescue," is the model legislation here [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law
- elromulous 3y ago
  Exactly. Just like oceangate.
- alex_lav 3y ago
  > As a generality, "unsafe voyage" is a reasonable thing to outlaw. Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too. Of all the stupid things regular people can do to add strain/cost to the united states' social systems, "unsafe voyage" seems pretty low on the list, both in cost and frequency. I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue. > Plus too-trusting friends & family who are along for the ride on their SS Davey Jones, collisions with other boats, cleaning up the wreckage and oil slicks, etc., etc. I am not arguing that unsafe voyage is a bad idea. I am arguing that it's out of character for this country to ban a specific bad idea due to safety.
  - p_l 3y ago
    Generally it's about limited, numerically, rescue resources that might then be unable to respond to a more serious eventm
    - alex_lav 3y ago
      There are a finite amount of firetrucks, ambulances and ER beds per municipality.
      - p_l 3y ago
        And if you think number of ambulances/ER/firetrucks is limited, they feel positively unlimited compared to more specialist rescue resources (sea, mountain, air etc.)
  - fineIllregister 3y ago
    > I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue. Fireworks are illegal in many states. Guns are regulated and there's widespread efforts for more.
    - alex_lav 3y ago
froggysnail 3y ago
Most people have guns, ammunitions, liquor, gas stove and toxic chemicals at home, and nothing happen.
- alex_lav 3y ago
  Yes, exactly.
elcritch 3y ago
The article says he was charged with “preventing boarding” and “disobeying the port captain”. Presumably if he’d chartered a tug to drop him off in international waters he could’ve been clear of the coast guard.
- eschulz 3y ago
  Yeah, that seems to be it. The Coast Guard has quite a bit of power in US waters, and if they see this thing they're likely to investigate. Maybe they thought it was the latest tech from a drug cartel.
Alupis 3y ago
> Mr Baluchi's voyage began as officials were preparing for the arrival of a major hurricane. > Officials said he refused to step off the vessel and threatened to kill himself. He also claimed that he had a bomb on board, according to court papers. > On 1 September, he eventually surrendered and abandoned his vessel after being brought to a Coast Guard base in Miami. > Officials later determined that the "bomb" had been fake. > He is now facing federal charges of obstruction of a boarding, and violation of a Captain of the Port order. He wasn't arrested for an unsafe vessel, he was arrested for everything else it appears.

bell-cot 3y ago

As a generality, "unsafe voyage" is a reasonable thing to outlaw. Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too. Plus too-trusting friends & family who are along for the ride on their SS Davey Jones, collisions with other boats, cleaning up the wreckage and oil slicks, etc., etc. Vs. this guy's "water wheel" seems to fairly-mostly avoid those issues, if the CG could just say "YOYO" and forget about him.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too This sounds like something adults should be allowed to opt out of. As long as the rest of us can be mature enough to not call for heads when some of them inevitably die, there shouldn’t be moral hazard. (Or maybe you’re rescued but you foot the entire bill.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- criddell 3y ago
  Adults who are rational and mentally healthy, sure. If a person were on top of a tall building wearing a bed sheet as a cape, letting them jump would be a similar moral issue in my eyes. If this person was warned that he would not be rescued and the next day sent out a distress signal, do you really think coast guard and other agencies would ignore the call for help?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > do you really think coast guard and other agencies would ignore the call for help? Arizona's stupid motorist law, which "states that any motorist who becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway may be charged for the cost of their rescue," is the model legislation here [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law
elromulous 3y ago
Exactly. Just like oceangate.
alex_lav 3y ago
> As a generality, "unsafe voyage" is a reasonable thing to outlaw. Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too. Of all the stupid things regular people can do to add strain/cost to the united states' social systems, "unsafe voyage" seems pretty low on the list, both in cost and frequency. I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue. > Plus too-trusting friends & family who are along for the ride on their SS Davey Jones, collisions with other boats, cleaning up the wreckage and oil slicks, etc., etc. I am not arguing that unsafe voyage is a bad idea. I am arguing that it's out of character for this country to ban a specific bad idea due to safety.
- p_l 3y ago
  Generally it's about limited, numerically, rescue resources that might then be unable to respond to a more serious eventm
  - alex_lav 3y ago
    There are a finite amount of firetrucks, ambulances and ER beds per municipality.
    - p_l 3y ago
      And if you think number of ambulances/ER/firetrucks is limited, they feel positively unlimited compared to more specialist rescue resources (sea, mountain, air etc.)
- fineIllregister 3y ago
  > I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue. Fireworks are illegal in many states. Guns are regulated and there's widespread efforts for more.
  - alex_lav 3y ago

froggysnail 3y ago

Most people have guns, ammunitions, liquor, gas stove and toxic chemicals at home, and nothing happen.

alex_lav 3y ago
Yes, exactly.

elcritch 3y ago

The article says he was charged with “preventing boarding” and “disobeying the port captain”. Presumably if he’d chartered a tug to drop him off in international waters he could’ve been clear of the coast guard.

eschulz 3y ago
Yeah, that seems to be it. The Coast Guard has quite a bit of power in US waters, and if they see this thing they're likely to investigate. Maybe they thought it was the latest tech from a drug cartel.

Alupis 3y ago

> Mr Baluchi's voyage began as officials were preparing for the arrival of a major hurricane. > Officials said he refused to step off the vessel and threatened to kill himself. He also claimed that he had a bomb on board, according to court papers. > On 1 September, he eventually surrendered and abandoned his vessel after being brought to a Coast Guard base in Miami. > Officials later determined that the "bomb" had been fake. > He is now facing federal charges of obstruction of a boarding, and violation of a Captain of the Port order. He wasn't arrested for an unsafe vessel, he was arrested for everything else it appears.