Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013 - Page 51 - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > General Interest > General Discussion (sailing related)
 Not a Member? 


Like Tree1048Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #501  
Old 08-07-2013
mstern's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 661
Thanks: 6
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Rep Power: 13
mstern is on a distinguished road
Re: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by weinie View Post
Actually, I think the next section is more applicable:
I have way too much work to do today, but this needs a whole lot more research before I am convinced that the laws of mutiny (as quoted before) are applicable. The statutes quoted above apply to "crew" on "vessels of the United States", or vessels in the territorial waters of the United States. Since the "mutiny" occured well beyond the 12 mile limit, the operative terms here are "crew" and "vessels of the United States". The first thing I would check (and I am a lawyer and do this for a living) is the applicable definitions section of the statute to see if either or both of those terms are defined. If its not, I would then check any court or administrative decisions that construed the law to see if any court or other agency had looked at these or similar questions before. You can also review whatever legislative history there is to see what Congress discussed (or put in the written record) before passing the law in question.

I haven't read the case cited in the earlier post concerning the applicability of the term "seaman" under the Jones Act, but it may be inapplicable. The Jones Act concerned better working conditions for seamen on American flagged vessels. The concept of who was a "seaman" for purposes of the Jones Act may have dealt only with who was entitled to the benefits of better pay, working conditions and the ability to sue their employer, not who counts as "crew" for purposes of determining who can be convicted of mutiny. Like I said, I didn't read the case (nor is it likely that I will); I just caution all of you again that the quality of the legal analysis that I read on the internet is worth about the price that you paid to read it. Most of it wouldn't cut the mustard in a first year law school class.

Regardless of whether Jake or RD counts as "crew" or the Aquarius as a "vessel of the United States" as defined in the statute, as a former prosecutor (at both the state and federal levels), I find it very hard to believe that any US Attorney's office would waste their time with this.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mstern For This Useful Post:
Grunthrie (08-08-2013), smackdaddy (08-07-2013)
  #502  
Old 08-07-2013
weinie's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 318
Thanks: 4
Thanked 10 Times in 8 Posts
Rep Power: 7
weinie is on a distinguished road
Re: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstern View Post
I have way too much work to do today, but this needs a whole lot more research before I am convinced that the laws of mutiny (as quoted before) are applicable. The statutes quoted above apply to "crew" on "vessels of the United States", or vessels in the territorial waters of the United States. Since the "mutiny" occured well beyond the 12 mile limit, the operative terms here are "crew" and "vessels of the United States". The first thing I would check (and I am a lawyer and do this for a living) is the applicable definitions section of the statute to see if either or both of those terms are defined. If its not, I would then check any court or administrative decisions that construed the law to see if any court or other agency had looked at these or similar questions before. You can also review whatever legislative history there is to see what Congress discussed (or put in the written record) before passing the law in question.

I haven't read the case cited in the earlier post concerning the applicability of the term "seaman" under the Jones Act, but it may be inapplicable. The Jones Act concerned better working conditions for seamen on American flagged vessels. The concept of who was a "seaman" for purposes of the Jones Act may have dealt only with who was entitled to the benefits of better pay, working conditions and the ability to sue their employer, not who counts as "crew" for purposes of determining who can be convicted of mutiny. Like I said, I didn't read the case (nor is it likely that I will); I just caution all of you again that the quality of the legal analysis that I read on the internet is worth about the price that you paid to read it. Most of it wouldn't cut the mustard in a first year law school class.

Regardless of whether Jake or RD counts as "crew" or the Aquarius as a "vessel of the United States" as defined in the statute, as a former prosecutor (at both the state and federal levels), I find it very hard to believe that any US Attorney's office would waste their time with this.
and the fact that there was no actual mutiny. Perhaps insubordination, but not mutiny.
Sal Paradise likes this.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #503  
Old 08-07-2013
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 452
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Rep Power: 5
tomandchris is on a distinguished road
Re: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013

Over 500 posts because a member here had a bad experience in a race. This all started as a cluster # and it still is one.
RD has not been back for a while and I don't think he will sue because there is nothing to win, and it would likely stop him from getting any rides in the future. Bad press is not a good thing. Jake has not mentioned suing anyone that I have seen, and seems to be the most rational of the crew. However, the posts have now moved to mutiny laws. Why? Is anyone planning a mutiny in the near future that this would be beneficial to know? Hell, we cannot even agree on how much water there should be per person per day so the jury would have to spend weeks just getting to an acceptable number of gallons.

This post could have been written by the old lady if the crew had included Chef. I think that mutiny would have definetely happened, winch handles would have been swung, and the old lady, as the only survivor, would have sailed in peace...finally....to Hawaii single handed.
She might have even won her division if she had not been DQ'd for the auto pilot usage
before she was a solo sailor. Maybe they would have given her an exception for her pain and suffering.
SalNichols94804 likes this.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #504  
Old 08-07-2013
casey1999's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: HI
Posts: 2,780
Thanks: 3
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Rep Power: 4
casey1999 is on a distinguished road
Re: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Heh-heh. You definitely freed NoStrings Nick!

I guess I just can't see why you keep overlooking the water situation. In my opinion, that's the crux of everything.
Smack,
The "no water issue" is not really an issue. The CG, Navy, or any one of a number of container ships running between California and Hawaii every day can and would drop water to these men and woman within hours notice if they really needed it. At most they are 1500 miles from Hawaii or CA and that is less than a 4 hr flight by the CG with air drop capabilities.

Interesting the CG did not respond to Rocks calls.

Don't understand why this crew did not file charges on landing on Hawaii if they thought they were so wronged. Actually, the crew is guilty of Terrroristic Theatening (a State of Hawaii charge) and the State of Hawaii takes this very seriously, much more so than other states. Terroristic Theatening pertains to both verbal and physical threats. The state would press charges if the Captain notified the authorities.

Definitions:
Terroristic Threatening
Hawaii Penal Code 707-716, 717
Definition: To verbally threaten another person. There are two different degrees of Terroristic Threatening Terroristic Threatening 1st - Threatening someone on more than one occasion for the same or a similar purpose. Threatening a Public Servant (ex. Police Officer, Teacher). Threatening someone with a dangerous instrument. Classification: Class C Felony Terroristic Threatening 2nd - A person threatens another person other than as provided in Terroristic Threatening 1st. Classification: Misdemeanor

Examples:

You are angry and upset with with someone and say that you will end their life, while holding any kind of weapon in your hand.
You threaten a person by saying that you will end their life.
You threaten a police officer or Teacher.


See two links below:

http://www.k12.hi.us/~dare/network/defterror.html
http://community.lawyers.com/forums/p/95948/455966.aspx

Last edited by casey1999; 08-07-2013 at 01:25 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #505  
Old 08-07-2013
smackdaddy's Avatar
Last Man Standing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 12,950
Thanks: 80
Thanked 72 Times in 66 Posts
Rep Power: 8
smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough smackdaddy is a jewel in the rough
Re: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by casey1999 View Post
Smack,
The "no water issue" is not really an issue. The CG, Navy, or any one of a number of container ships running between California and Hawaii every day can and would drop water to these men and woman within hours notice if they really needed it. At most they are 1500 miles from Hawaii or CA and that is less than a 4 hr flight by the CG with air drop capabilities.
I guess that's what's interesting here. On the one hand you're right. The "water emergency" was perhaps more perceived than actual. I don't know.

On the other hand, if ANY skipper/sailor planned or operated with such contingencies in mind (e.g. - someone will be close enough to bring me food, water, fuel, etc.) - they would be deemed a threat to everything we hold to as standard "seamanship". Further, this notion would absolve the skipper, the crew, or anyone else of mistakes made in this regard...or get them into far more trouble than they already were.

To me, the real issue is how a skipper plans and executes the voyage. That should ALWAYS be done under the guise of responsible self-sufficiency. And if that self-sufficiency is undermined, to the point of a potentially life-threatening state, every measure should be taken to remain self-sufficient as long as possible. That's what the people on this boat did in the long run - with encouragement to do so from each contacted authority from what I can see - and it worked out. And that was the right thing. It was just very messy in the process.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/V Dawn Treader - 1989 Hunter Legend 40

Last edited by smackdaddy; 08-07-2013 at 01:43 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #506  
Old 08-07-2013
casey1999's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: HI
Posts: 2,780
Thanks: 3
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Rep Power: 4
casey1999 is on a distinguished road
Re: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
I guess that's what's interesting here. On the one hand you're right. The "water emergency" was perhaps more perceived than actual. I don't know.

On the other hand, if ANY skipper/sailor planned or operated with such contingencies in mind (e.g. - someone will be close enough to bring me food, water, fuel, etc.) - they would be deemed a threat to everything we hold to as standard "seamanship". Further, this notion would absolve the skipper, the crew, or anyone else of mistakes made in this regard...or get them into far more trouble than they already were.

To me, the real issue is how a skipper plans and executes the voyage. That should ALWAYS be done under the guise of responsible self-sufficiency. And if that self-sufficiency is undermined, to the point of a potentially life-threatening state, every measure should be taken to remain self-sufficient as long as possible. That's what the people on this boat did in the long run - with encouragement to do so from each contacted authority from what I can see - and it worked out. And that was the right thing. It was just very messy in the process.
Disagree. Threats and violence resulted from a perceived danger. The temperament of the crew and the way they handled stressful situations was much more of a danger than even running out of water, or sailing the boat poorly. The Capt and crew could have injured themselves in their altercations and violent out burst. Much more dangerous than being out of water for a few hours. I am sure the CG would much rather drop of some water than to pick up body bags. It is also more seamen like to run out of water than to lead a mutiny.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
The Following User Says Thank You to casey1999 For This Useful Post:
SalNichols94804 (08-07-2013)
  #507  
Old 08-07-2013
TTC TTC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 26
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
TTC is on a distinguished road
Re: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by casey1999 View Post
Smack,
Don't understand why this crew did not file charges on landing on Hawaii if they thought they were so wronged. Actually, the crew is guilty of Terrroristic Theatening (a State of Hawaii charge) and the State of Hawaii takes this very seriously, much more so than other states. Terroristic Theatening pertains to both verbal and physical threats. The state would press charges if the Captain notified the authorities.

Definitions:
Terroristic Threatening
Hawaii Penal Code 707-716, 717
Definition: To verbally threaten another person. There are two different degrees of Terroristic Threatening Terroristic Threatening 1st - Threatening someone on more than one occasion for the same or a similar purpose. Threatening a Public Servant (ex. Police Officer, Teacher). Threatening someone with a dangerous instrument. Classification: Class C Felony Terroristic Threatening 2nd - A person threatens another person other than as provided in Terroristic Threatening 1st. Classification: Misdemeanor

Examples:

You are angry and upset with with someone and say that you will end their life, while holding any kind of weapon in your hand.
You threaten a person by saying that you will end their life.
You threaten a police officer or Teacher.


See two links below:

definitions-Terroristic Threatening
"Terroristic Threatening" in Hawaii - Lawyers.com Community


And why would the state of Hawaii have any jurisdiction over incidents that happened in the middle (relatively speaking) of the Pacific?
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #508  
Old 08-07-2013
casey1999's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: HI
Posts: 2,780
Thanks: 3
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Rep Power: 4
casey1999 is on a distinguished road
Re: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTC View Post
And why would the state of Hawaii have any jurisdiction over incidents that happened in the middle (relatively speaking) of the Pacific?
I'm no lawyer so not quite sure how it would work, but the ship is a registered us vessel and the port of entry would have jurisdiction once the boat enters 3 mile state limit. But say a physical assault or murder occurred on the ship while outside the 3 mile state limit. On landing an arrest would be made by the local Hawaii police for sure, if the state was knowledgeable of the incident.

Last edited by casey1999; 08-07-2013 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #509  
Old 08-07-2013
TTC TTC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 26
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
TTC is on a distinguished road
Re: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by casey1999 View Post
I'm no lawyer so not quite sure how it would work, but the ship is a registered us vessel and the port of entry would have jurisdiction once the boat enters 3 mile state limit. But say a physical assault or murder occurred on the ship while outside the 3 mile state limit. On landing an arrest would be made my the local Hawaii police for sure, if the state was knowledgeable of the incident.
Hawaii law doesn't apply on the high seas.

As a US-flagged vessel, federal law would apply to a physical assault or murder on the high seas. But the State of Hawaii couldn't arrest anyone without a federal warrant.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #510  
Old 08-07-2013
casey1999's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: HI
Posts: 2,780
Thanks: 3
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Rep Power: 4
casey1999 is on a distinguished road
Re: Mutiny at Dawn - Transpac Race 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTC View Post
Hawaii law doesn't apply on the high seas.

As a US-flagged vessel, federal law would apply to a physical assault or murder on the high seas. But the State of Hawaii couldn't arrest anyone without a federal warrant.
Ok then. If Rock was so concerned as to future actions by Capt, why was there not an arrest on landing? Why did Rock not file a complaint?
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheap Classic Plastic smokes the fleet in 2013 Down the Bay Race jameswilson29 General Discussion (sailing related) 65 06-04-2013 02:52 PM
SouthEast Alaska Sailing announces 2013 SEAS Cup Race schedule NewsReader News Feeds 0 05-08-2013 08:50 PM
OKI 24-hr Sailing Race 2013 NewsReader News Feeds 0 02-25-2013 05:40 AM
Melbourne-Geelong Race 2013 Classic30 General Discussion (sailing related) 0 01-29-2013 12:56 AM
TransPac July 2013 MCM aguyleroux Racing 2 11-04-2012 08:48 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:51 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012