5 ms·

> [US Coast Guard] officers determined Baluchi was conducting a manifestly unsafe voyage," the criminal complaint says. Doing something probably dangerous to

> [US Coast Guard] officers determined Baluchi was conducting a manifestly unsafe voyage," the criminal complaint says. Doing something probably dangerous to myself is a criminal offense is new to me. Besides, with such overbearing interferences the state will only hamper the pioneer spirit of American, one of the agreeable most important things that made America such a great nation.

_8j50 3y ago
I sort of agree in spirit but the fact is, he was within US territorial waters when he made the attempt and the coast guard is responsible for rescuing him. If you want to set fire to your house while you are in it for example the same logic applies. Emergency responders are put at risk and tax payer money is wasted because of his actions. What I agree with is that similar to "do not resucitstate" declarations/tattoos, you should be able to make an arrangement with the coast guard notifying them of your intent and waiving any rescue obligations on their end. Or, he could just tow his craft with a boat until he enters international waters and start his attempt there.
sparrowInHand 3y ago
Its also a great chance to filter out mentally unsound pioneers and feed them to the fishes. A great improvement on the entrapeneurial caste, which filtered through this medium, tastes great with buttersauce and potato-mash on the side.
- ekanes 3y ago
  I expect you're joking, but no need to be so callous. A society that feeds the mentally unwell to the fishes isn't one you actually want to be part of. Everyone is someone's child.
  - sparrowInHand 3y ago
    This is the us. This is what happens. Regularly.
boeingUH60 3y ago
If the guy goes missing, the US Coast Guard is obligated to find him, spending many hours of manpower and possibly hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. There's calculated risk and there's stupid risk...this one falls into the latter.
- blake1 3y ago
  Apparently he has attempted this before, only to require coast guard rescue—exactly as you suggested.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > the US Coast Guard is obligated to find him Courts have repeatedly ruled that the government has no obligation to protect its citizens.[0,1] If they didn't go after him and his family sued its a virtual certainty that they would lose. [0]https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2018/12/17/cops-and-schools-had-no-duty-to-shield-students-in-parkland-shooting-says-judge-who-tossed-lawsuit/ https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2018/12/17/cops-and-schools-had... [1]https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/ https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-...
  - HillRat 3y ago
    There's an outstanding conflict between statutory law (which codifies a duty to rescue on all mariners) and case law (which has generally found that neither private nor public actors have a duty to assist), but once USCG has essentially taken notice of an issue at sea, they have a legal obligation to deal with the situation lest they end up on the wrong side of a FTCA suit. In this case, there isn't any way they could ignore a crazy guy taking a Habitrail to sea; just by realizing a manifestly unseaworthy vessel was being taken into dangerous conditions by an impaired pilot, they (arguably) created a duty of care. There are a lot of cases where the fact pattern wouldn't obviously lead to this -- a drunk guy sailing a J/22 across the Atlantic on a bet is a bad idea, but not an obvious immediate danger to life and limb in the same way -- but I think any jury would look at this and say, "Yeah, no reasonable person would think this guy isn't gonna die out there." (Leaving obligations aside, USCG takes its mission very seriously, and 14 USC §521 gives them incredibly expansive powers to do whatever they deem necessary to protect lives and property on the high seas and coastal waters. Playing stupid games on deep waters is not something that the Coasties like to see.)
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
LeafItAlone 3y ago
Perhaps this is the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/177.07 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/177.07 The law (and others) seem to protect others from harm from the offender. Driving at night in a car with no brakes and no headlights is also illegal in my state. That seems to be in a similar vein. > Besides, with such overbearing interferences the state will only hamper the pioneer spirit of American, one of the agreeable most important things that made America such a great nation. Certainly something to be wary of but, to me, this isn’t the right example of innovation being hampered. The underlying “experiment” could have been perfectly legal with a few safeguards (for others) in place.
victorbjorklund 3y ago
Wait until you hear about the laws about which drugs you may or may not put in your own body...
wnwn 3y ago
fwiw the complaint is for violations of: 18 U.S.C. § 2237(a)(2)(A) - Obstruction of a Boarding 46 U.S.C. § 70036(b)(1) - Violation of a Captain of the Port Order and the coast guard was attempting to use their authority to terminate the voyage under https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/4308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/4308
foxyv 3y ago
There are hundreds of laws specifically to compel idiots to not kill themselves and the people around them. Stuff like seat belts, helmet laws, air worthiness regulations, laws against cliff diving, against base jumping, trespassing near live electrical equipment... I'm sure if you think about it a little more you will realize the concept isn't new to yourself either.

_8j50 3y ago

I sort of agree in spirit but the fact is, he was within US territorial waters when he made the attempt and the coast guard is responsible for rescuing him. If you want to set fire to your house while you are in it for example the same logic applies. Emergency responders are put at risk and tax payer money is wasted because of his actions. What I agree with is that similar to "do not resucitstate" declarations/tattoos, you should be able to make an arrangement with the coast guard notifying them of your intent and waiving any rescue obligations on their end. Or, he could just tow his craft with a boat until he enters international waters and start his attempt there.

sparrowInHand 3y ago

Its also a great chance to filter out mentally unsound pioneers and feed them to the fishes. A great improvement on the entrapeneurial caste, which filtered through this medium, tastes great with buttersauce and potato-mash on the side.

ekanes 3y ago
I expect you're joking, but no need to be so callous. A society that feeds the mentally unwell to the fishes isn't one you actually want to be part of. Everyone is someone's child.
- sparrowInHand 3y ago
  This is the us. This is what happens. Regularly.

boeingUH60 3y ago

If the guy goes missing, the US Coast Guard is obligated to find him, spending many hours of manpower and possibly hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. There's calculated risk and there's stupid risk...this one falls into the latter.

blake1 3y ago
Apparently he has attempted this before, only to require coast guard rescue—exactly as you suggested.
willcipriano 3y ago
> the US Coast Guard is obligated to find him Courts have repeatedly ruled that the government has no obligation to protect its citizens.[0,1] If they didn't go after him and his family sued its a virtual certainty that they would lose. [0]https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2018/12/17/cops-and-schools-had-no-duty-to-shield-students-in-parkland-shooting-says-judge-who-tossed-lawsuit/ https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2018/12/17/cops-and-schools-had... [1]https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/ https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-...
- HillRat 3y ago
  There's an outstanding conflict between statutory law (which codifies a duty to rescue on all mariners) and case law (which has generally found that neither private nor public actors have a duty to assist), but once USCG has essentially taken notice of an issue at sea, they have a legal obligation to deal with the situation lest they end up on the wrong side of a FTCA suit. In this case, there isn't any way they could ignore a crazy guy taking a Habitrail to sea; just by realizing a manifestly unseaworthy vessel was being taken into dangerous conditions by an impaired pilot, they (arguably) created a duty of care. There are a lot of cases where the fact pattern wouldn't obviously lead to this -- a drunk guy sailing a J/22 across the Atlantic on a bet is a bad idea, but not an obvious immediate danger to life and limb in the same way -- but I think any jury would look at this and say, "Yeah, no reasonable person would think this guy isn't gonna die out there." (Leaving obligations aside, USCG takes its mission very seriously, and 14 USC §521 gives them incredibly expansive powers to do whatever they deem necessary to protect lives and property on the high seas and coastal waters. Playing stupid games on deep waters is not something that the Coasties like to see.)

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

LeafItAlone 3y ago

Perhaps this is the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/177.07 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/177.07 The law (and others) seem to protect others from harm from the offender. Driving at night in a car with no brakes and no headlights is also illegal in my state. That seems to be in a similar vein. > Besides, with such overbearing interferences the state will only hamper the pioneer spirit of American, one of the agreeable most important things that made America such a great nation. Certainly something to be wary of but, to me, this isn’t the right example of innovation being hampered. The underlying “experiment” could have been perfectly legal with a few safeguards (for others) in place.

victorbjorklund 3y ago

Wait until you hear about the laws about which drugs you may or may not put in your own body...

wnwn 3y ago

fwiw the complaint is for violations of: 18 U.S.C. § 2237(a)(2)(A) - Obstruction of a Boarding 46 U.S.C. § 70036(b)(1) - Violation of a Captain of the Port Order and the coast guard was attempting to use their authority to terminate the voyage under https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/4308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/4308

foxyv 3y ago

There are hundreds of laws specifically to compel idiots to not kill themselves and the people around them. Stuff like seat belts, helmet laws, air worthiness regulations, laws against cliff diving, against base jumping, trespassing near live electrical equipment... I'm sure if you think about it a little more you will realize the concept isn't new to yourself either.