Hacker News Reader

Comment by alex_lav | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.)

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?

> 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

Exactly. Just like oceangate.

> 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.

Generally it's about limited, numerically, rescue resources that might then be unable to respond to a more serious eventm

There are a finite amount of firetrucks, ambulances and ER beds per municipality.

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.)

> 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.

Fireworks are universally illegal in a single state. Google it.

"Universally" makes that statement useless. Vermont only allows sparklers. That is practically a ban on fireworks in the context of this discussion. Many other states have strong restrictions, partially for sake of reducing injuries (and noise and fire risk).

And there is constant advocacy for stronger restrictions/bans.

The point is, we do restrict people's actions on fireworks and guns in order to prevent larger costs. They are not a counter example for why the Coast Guard should have done nothing in this case.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

Yes, exactly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com