Back in my day we did have just such rules. There were 2 factors: hypothermia and shark attack. As water got warmer shark attacks went up. Searches were terminated with respect to those graphs. Some percent chance of survival.There maybe no law... but there must be a rule.
The US Navy in searching for the downed KC130 Tanker a few weeks ago kept searching for many days, until FAR after those people could have possibly survived.
They must have some rule, say, estimated maximum survival time x 2.
I will give you my newly formulated rule: Any Crew of mine going overboard will have me searching for them for Estimated Survival Time x 2... during which I will fire every EPIRB and call everyone on my sat phone till there is help in the search, no matter what.
If you get on my boat the only way off is the Gang Plank in a safe port.
I guarantee it!
“I think it was [Vice Admiral] Shelanski who asked, ‘Well, do we have to take them out of the water?’ We all laughed, but then a few minutes later he asked again: ‘Seriously, do we have to?’ So we pulled our old Admiralty law off the shelf, along with our Navy Regulations, and discovered that we’re actually not obligated to. It’s just one of those 240-year traditions where no one can remember why we do it.”
Acting Secretary of the Navy Sean Stackley said he concurred with the Navy’s decision.
“Last year alone we had 17 sailors fall overboard,” Stackley said at a press conference. “It costs an average of $50,000 to divert a single ship off course for an hour. Given the average three to four hour rescue time, plus diverting accompanying vessels, we’re easily wasting millions of dollars a year on sailors who apparently can’t master such elementary tasks as not falling off a ship.”
Have I been had? Didn’t find a supporting article!Read that entire Duffleblog article. It's priceless!
You are going down a dangerous path here. There are only three avenues to get the "hearing" you want: a criminal trial, a civil trial, or a regulatory proceeding. The state tried the criminal route and found that there was no charge they could bring; the man's estate, for whatever reason, withdrew their civil suit (note, they could have asked the court to hold it in abeyance pending the outcome of the criminal trial, but they didn't), and the Coast Guard has chosen not to proceed with a regulatory licensing enforcement case.I never said he should rot in jail only that he be brought to court and the matter fully disclosed under oath.
You rejoice that you live where you can die due to the carelessness of others and the matter will just be shrugged off without a full and complete hearing on the matter?
My dad used to say something to the effect of “He was found not guilty, but worthy of being locked up anyway.”I cannot really get my head around the fact that anyone would support a conviction of a man for a crime he didn't commit because they feel "well, what he did was awful, so he should be guilty of something!"
I am currently making my way through Steven Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature” and his conclusion is that we’re more Hobbes than Rousseau, that we are learning to behave better over time but it’s through law and culture and education, and not because of any primitive goodness.You can even look at it from a philosophical point of view. Is right innate ( Rousseau/ Spinoza) or externally brought to bear (Hobbes).
I remember one discussion with a police officer, who flat out told me that he's lied in court in order to get a conviction. His rationale: "he may not have done this, but he's done something else that we didn't catch him for..." Fortunately, I don't think that kind of attitude was at all widespread. Most of the cops I worked with were on the straight and narrow. But still, it was quite unnerving to hear that kind of talk, and just one cop like that will poison public confidence in the rest.My dad used to say something to the effect of “He was found not guilty, but worthy of being locked up anyway.”
Sometimes, judges do the right thing. Another case in point:"On The Basis of Sex". Good film.Snort! I was present at the trial of a lady who was admittedly driving under the influence of prescription drugs, extreamly erratically (I witnessed) and who crashed, but was too looped to get out of the car. All the above was stipulated by defense. Who then told the Judge “You cant convict her because her drug test came back negative because the ER was full and it too many hours to do the test.” (Haughty NYC lawyer, his suit cost more than my car new.). The judge declared her guilty anyway. Slick went into a fury about how he was right and he would appeal. The judge said (obviously paraphrasing, but not as much as you think, things were pretty raw.):
“Look Slick, you can appeal my ruling, you will probably win. The appeal will cost her $15,000 and take 6 months minimum. In the meantime she’s off the road and no danger to the public. So guess what, I win!”
Slick made some sarcastic comments, slammed a few things, making a great show, and stormed out of the courtroom. The Judge shook his head and laughed.
Please forgive my mistaking that you did not mean the Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute (also federal). My mistake could be because this entire thread began with a discussion of a Captain charged under the Seaman’s Statute.No he didn't. That decision pertained to the Seaman's Manslaughter Statute at 18 U.S.Code § 1115. The above question relates to the Federal Manslaughter Statute at 18 U.S. Code § 1112. Those are different laws, and the decision you cited has no applicability to the Federal Manslaughter Statute at 18 U.S. Code § 1112.
I don't know how anyone can realistically expect that Pontious have a "day in court" when he's one of four people in a small boat in the Atlantic Ocean. Likewise, Pontious didn't give the captain his "day in court" when he tried to beat him and choke him to death. I can't imagine anyone venturing out into the wilderness who actually expects a "day in court" if he becomes a victim of a crime in the wilderness. In the real world, you can't pause the video tape of life while you resolve interpersonal issues with a trial and a judge. It doesn't happen that way in a wilderness, and it also doesn't happen that way at 2:00 am on a dark street in a crime ridden city.Oh, btw the deceased crew didn’t have his day in court. Think he deserved one. Don’t care for what legal semantics are applied. That simple fact persists.