Ran across this. Thought you might be interested.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...TL&hw=Benicia&sn=001&sc=1000

Just curious, how is a situation like this handled by the authorities ?
These idiots put their own lives in danger, endangered the safety of a supertanker crew and tug-boat crew, incurred massive costs for launching Coast Guard vessels and a helicopter.
All in the name of having fun, operating a sailboat without the necessary safety equipment, overloading and operating under the influence of alcohol. Not obtaining clearance from the port authorities, and doing all of this in a shipping channel. Very clever.
I sincerely hope the Authorities press charges against this sub-intelligent form of life for endangering the lives of his passengers and the crew of the other vessels involved, and charge him with all costs involved. Can you just imagine what would have happened if the tug-boat, in an attempt to miss them, had grounded the cargo ship, what costs and damage this could have caused.
People like this are the main reason why, year after year, the authorities in many countries tighten up the restrictions on sailboats leaving shore to such an extent that it becomes near-impossible for those who do so responsibly, to sail offshore. Yet these idiots get away with it, and even get their moment of "fame" in the headlines.

HERE! HERE!

You've got it exactly right. Sometimes it would be nice if the Coasties could have the ability (and the testicular fortitude) to say, "Nah, we are a little busy right now. Keep swimming and we'll get back to you." The "captain" should be fined and lose his boating privileges.
We have a police officer locally that got sick of listening to the foul mouth of drunk biker in the back of his squad car and duck taped his mouth. The police officer is on administrative leave. Oh well.

Wow.
just... wow.

I disagree guys. Sure, they were stupid; esp. the owner of the boat. But if they pay their taxes like everyone else is supposed to, they should have the benefit of all the emergency services they need in the event of an emergency. The coast guard is required to respond to any emergency, no matter how busy they might be. Furthermore, what if the circumstances had been different? What if there were 3 people on the boat and it was visiting SF from another city or state? The coast guard cannot distinguish the exact details of the event until after the fact; hence, it has to respond to all of them with equal urgency,

Steve, you are looking at an American incident with a foreign socialist attitude.
In America we believe in individual rights and free will of citizens.
Our government is supposed to work FOR us, not treat us like children.
We don't restrict all Americans because of a few idiots.
We pay taxes to provide police, fire departments, Coast Guard, etc, etc, instead of sending someone a bill when their services are needed.

If there had been a grounding or other monetary damage, the injured party would be able to seek restitution in court.

I have never heard of anyone being stopped by any government agency from sailing offshore, provided they had the required safety equipment.
I live on the Atlantic coast and I don't need permission from ANYONE to launch my boat and head out into the ocean.

Were they "breath tested" for being "under the influence"?? If it was a car accident instead of "at sea" being in control of a car whilst "under the influence" is an offence is it not?
In most countries today the same applies to being in control of a boat whilst "under the influence" and carries similar penalties as the loss of life can occure through "impaired awareness". A crime is a crime - no matter how many taxes you pay!

"foriegn SOCIALIST attitude" ---- South africa is about as socialistic as Nazi Germany was a jewish state!!!!!

Darryl, (the anti-American little OZZIE)

So now you are an expert on international law?
I thought you were a "yacht" designer who built little catamarans in OZ?

Your assumptions about America are so childlike, they are funny.
How many times have you been to America?
How many days have you spent in America?
How many American law books have you read?
How many American courtrooms have you been in?
You ignorantly, and incorrectly, assume that all Coast Guard ships have a breathalyzer onboard.
You ignorantly, and incorrectly, assume that that the American laws concerning the operation of a boat would be identical to the laws concerning the operation of a car.
You ignorantly, and incorrectly, assume that what is a "crime" on land is a "crime" at sea, in America.

How many is "most countries today"?
How many countries have you visited?
How many countries have you lived in?
How many countries have you read law books in?
How many countries courtrooms have you been in?
Grow up and realize that your knowledge of "most countries today" is sadly limited.

You ignorantly, and incorrectly, assumed that I referred to South Africa as a socialist country, I did not.
I thought english was the official language in OZ, but I will explain it to you anyway.
I said that Steve was "looking" "with a" "socialist attitude".
There are people with socialist attitudes everywhere, even America.
There will always be lazy irresponsible people who want the government to baby them and take care of them.

P.S.
People who talk about things they know nothing about should remember,
It is better to be silent and have people think you are a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

"Advice is like castor oil, easy to give, but dreadful to take."
-- Josh Billings

Silly discussion.
True, authorities always have to respond to emergencies. That's their job. Regardless of the cause or nature of the emergency.
Also true, we're paying taxes to enable rescue-squads to do their job.
But I'm not paying taxes to have rescue-teams rescue people that think they can do anything because they pay taxes.

Be real, you're not alone on this planet, otherwise take a one-way trip to Mars, there's water too.
It's all about respecting each other.

Perhaps you should ask (and answer) all those questions relative to yourself, first SAM considering you are portraying yourself as such an expert.
Any other response that I make to you would only be stooping to your own very low level. BYE BYE SAMMY.

Sam, you`re quite right, it`s impossible for me or Darryl or any non-American to look at things from an American perspective, if our opinions are "foreign" to you, you might concede that yours can be so to us at times.
"Socialist" is an out-of-place term though, and one which either one of us, or perhaps both, don`t fully understand the meaning of, so best we keep it out of the conversation.
My opinion is based on the fact that people should accept and take responsibility for their own safety and responsibility, and when in a position to take responsibility for other people`s safety, should do so in such a way that they don`t endanger the other person`s safety, whether wilfully or negligently. It has less to do with what country I`m from and it`s political standing, and more to do with what my father taught me.
I`m battling to understand your approach - that people can behave in such a way that endagers the lives of others, act irresponsibly (drink alcohol, then sail across a shipping channel in the middle of the night with no navigation lights, no safety equipment, lifejackets not worn, no flares etc.), and then expect to be rescued at no cost to themselves (ie carry no responsibility for their actions), because evryone pays taxes, so they are entitled to it. Sam, I see this as a far more "socialist" attitude than mine.
Of course I agree entirely that they should be rescued by the CG, it`s their job to save lives, but I believe that they should be made responsible for their actions since they were behaving with gross negligence. If that doesn`t happen, it won`t be another 3 weeks before another idiot goes out and makes negative headlines as an ambassador to our sport. (Thankfully it will probably be an American with your attitude.) To be blunt, if it was a powerboat or rowing-boat incident, I would`nt bother to respond.
We don`t have a government-funded CG, we have a private donor-funded institute that does the same job. They rely on donations from the public to fund rescue and training, and an unneccessary rescue such as this one costs money that they could spend on real rescue missions (Unneccessary because, had these people been responsible adults, they would not have been in that situation.)
If these folks were slapped with a hefty fine for negligence while on the water and that money went to a fund for all the CG guys families who have lost their lives while rescuing others, I`d be satisfied.
Just because the US has a govt-funded operation is no cause for you to "expect" to be rescued, what if the CG uses up all it`s allocated budget on drunken idiots, would you be happy if they raised your taxes to cover your own rescue while sailing responsibly, or could not come to your aid becuase their funds had been exhausted saving reckless perty-goers ?
Hey Sam, just becuase we differ in opinion, doesn`t mean any of us are right !

Actually that is true. All Coast Guards ships have breathalizers. Boat laws although NOT identical but very similar. There are speed limits, and you cannot drive a boat under the influence of alcohol. If it is a crime on Land, it definatley a crime on sea. A crime is a crime, where ever you go.
Can you please let me know what crime on land, cannot be prosecuted or charged at sea? I would like to know, so I can look further into it.

We have this discussion all the time where I live.
BASE jumping is viewed as irresponsible, and lots of people want them to pay for their own rescue when they mess up (when there is something left to rescue, which is surprisingly often).
Rescue is free, becouse we dont want people to wait before they report accidents fearing that they will be ruined. People dies that way, which is very expensive for the society (lost taxes, waisted education, healthcare etc.).

Now, some cliffs are off-limits for the BASE jumpers, like our Troll-Wall (as is/was "The Nose" in Yosemite). If they mess up here, they are billed for the rescue, fined and have their equipment confiscated. An australian hit the wall here some time ago (chute opened the wrong way), and his friends waited several days before they reported it (and left), the rescuers found the body some days later, between the glacier and the rock-face.

I think it's fair that people pay for their rescue or get fined if they do really stupid things, even if it's very expensive and possibly ruionus. But who decides, and how do we draw the line between stupid and just stretching the limits?
Should the Tybee 500 sailors have free rescue if they get in serious problems. What about another guy doing the same thing in a much smaller boat?

[quote]Can you please let me know what crime on land, cannot be prosecuted or charged at sea? I would like to know, so I can look further into it.


Hmmmm. Jaywalking?

On the surface it does seem a silly discussion but it does serve to point out fundamental beliefs that I believe cross national (and international) boundries. Yes, we pay taxes to ensure assistance to all (police, fire, and coast guard are prominent examples) but Steves' point about spending tax money wisely is valid. In a free society, people are free to act irresponsibly, unfortunately. I probably have acted that way myself at some point in my life. To that end, if I needed assistance I would hope to have police, fire, or coast guard there to render that assistance. HOWEVER, I would DEEPLY regret endangering anyone elses life for my action and I would certainly expect to suffer consequences for my action at some point in the future. That is what I was taught to believe. Actions have consequences.
Finally, in response to Sam, it has been my experience, in traveling the world, that the rest of the world (Australians in particular) know A HELL OF A LOT more about our country than we know of theirs. I find it embarrassing quite often. I would think twice before correcting anyone since, as Robi points out, even you can be incorrect at times while discretion is the better part of valor.

Abadea, Abadea, THAT'S ALL FOLKS!!!!!! --- Porky Pig

Have a windy day-Greg

I don't know which Randian utopia samevans lives in, but in the United States, governmental entities across the country are chasing after reimbursement for their efforts. This ranges from mountain climbing rescues to charging for putting out wildfires started by arson or accident and it extends to charging the person's estate should they end up dead. Besides, in a real Randian utopia, Real Men wouldn't need rescuing by weak, socialist organizations like the USCG.

Also, we do restrict all Americans because of a few idiots. For a start, we have seatbelt and helmet laws and a 21 drinking age all being enforced with more and more draconian penalties. From a personal freedom viewpoint, I have a problem with these laws, but as long as people are going to be irresponsible about their personal safety and then expect me to pay for their injuries when a seatbelt or helmet could have easily prevented that injury, I'm fine with them. In other words, I look at a lot (not all) of these "nanny laws" as protecting me from another person or their lawyer, not the government telling me what to do.

Jesus Christ was the only man that is capable of walking on water. I dont remember him jaywalking.

Jaywalking is a petty violation. I wouldnt call it a crime.

SAM seems a little slow with his (usual) responce???? Hope he isn't ill.

I think its the other way around on laws, I think there are more at sea than on land, Although i've never seen them in writing, Ive heard there are some interesteing laws at sea. like "you can have a cannon, or cannon balls on your boat, but its illegal to have both"

Hope this lightens the mood a bit.