Boarding someone elses boat

[Andy73]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Maybe in Canada.

Here in the United States, our Supreme Court has guaranted one absolute, untempered right.

If you don't have the same absolute right, you have my pity. At any rate, the statement "no right is absolute" is ignorance. It may be local ignorance, but it isn't the case in the big, wide world.

Hi Jammer,

What right are you referring to hear? Not arguing with your principle, but I can't think of a single right in the US that hasn't been abridged in some fashion...

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Our count stands at four.

"I don't want to join the thread. I just wanted to let you know that I am shocked that people think it is their job to decide what you do with your property. And it is in any way your job to let them know that you want to keep your private property private. I just thought it was assumed that way unless you told me otherwise. Anyways, you not alone."

I'm hoping that four is enough to demonstrate my point: no one knows what the majority is. There is no way to determine it for any given marina, let alone for an area or the world.

I used to live in a nasty little town where everyone left their doors unlocked. I did not conclude from that that leaving my door unlocked here in the heart of Seattle was something everyone did.

All that your four demonstrates is that it is a minority. Further confirming my point. Why do you find this so hard to accept? Why don't you want to let people know your wishes when they are CLEARLY different from the majority?

I'd quite happily let your boat bash itself to pieces on the rocks but I have no way of determining which is your boat amongst boats owned by the majority of people who would prefer not to see that happen.

Seriously, this isn't hard and I don't understand why you're being so difficult about it.

[tp12]

It is possible to determine that majority in the circumstances you describe, it's called a poll. You seem to think it's unreasonable to take this 150+ post thread as a representative sample of cruisers wishes and, the rest of us don't.


What does that tell you?


Jesus dude, put a freakin sign up!

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by Andy73

What right are you referring to hear?

The right against self-incrimination.

We may convict you, we may end your life, we may lock you up for many, many consecutive life terms, we may interpret your silence as guilt and we may lock you in solitary confinement until you go completely insane, but you don't have to actively help us convict you.

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by tp12

Why do you find this so hard to accept?

It's not the number comparison that I won't accept.

It's the idea that a minority wouldn't have rights or somehow sacrifices the protection of law simply because it's a minority.

And actually, "my" four does not demonstrate that we're a minority. My four demonstrates that I am not alone, and, therefore, no one knows how many of us there are.

Originally Posted by tp12

Seriously, this isn't hard and I don't understand why you're being so difficult about it.

Well, I know exactly how you feel.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

It's not the number comparison that I won't accept.

It's the idea that a minority wouldn't have rights or somehow sacrifices the protection of law simply because it's a minority.

And actually, "my" four does not demonstrate that we're a minority. My four demonstrates that I am not alone, and, therefore, no one knows how many of us there are.


Well, I know exactly how you feel.

Hmmm ... we all have rights but I think you misunderstand the application of the law here. If you refuse to identify yourself as having different wishes to the majority, and this is easy to demonstrate despite your assertions, then you would find it very difficult to prosecute someone for having saved your boat. I would be willing to bet that it would be impossible for you to successfully prosecute someone for that.

Oh and yes, your four clearly demonstrates that you are a minority within this data set. If you're argument is that this isn't representative of cruisers overall I would also argue against that. But you've contradicted yourself in your post...

Anyway, as you refuse to identify yourself as someone who does not want their boat to be saved from damage or loss, IMO, you have no right to get upset with anyone stepping aboard your boat to do that.

Why put yourself in that situation? Interesting psychology at work here...

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by tp12

Hmmm ... we all have rights but I think you misunderstand the application of the law here.

Well, one of us does. That majority, if it exists, has very little to do with the law. The law against trespassing is the law against trespassing, and if your majority is so important (it's not) why not change the law?

The answer are simple, and directly on point: because you don't have a sufficient majority to even come close to changing trespassing laws in any state in the U.S.

Originally Posted by tp12

Oh and yes, your four clearly demonstrates that you are a minority within this data set.

The mistake here is that I don't have four. I have at least four.

I'll say it yet again. No one knows what the count here is, because there's no way to force everyone to choose.

If we were to use your method of counting, I would go back through the thread, carefully count all the participants, subtract the number of participants agreeing with you from the number of participants on cruiserfourms, and claim a slam-dunk, overwhelming majority.

Why don't I? Because I'm aware of the fallacy of your type of "counting".

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Well, one of us does. That majority, if it exists, has very little to do with the law. The law against trespassing is the law against trespassing, and if your majority is so important (it's not) why not change the law?

The answer are simple, and directly on point: because you don't have a sufficient majority to even come close to changing trespassing laws in any state in the U.S.

Look mate, I can't make you comprehend what has already been written regarding trespassing. Specifically showing that if intent can be reasonably shown to be to prevent damage and loss. I'm sorry but you're just wrong and I've run out of energy. You're being completely obtuse.

The mistake here is that I don't have four. I have at least four.

I'll say it yet again. No one knows what the count here is, because there's no way to force everyone to choose.

The thread can be used as a data set, which proves my point whether you like it or want to make anything else up or not. Your argument seems to be that it's not representative but I, and the majority of posters here, would argue differently.

The simple fact remains this - if you want people to stay off your boat in the scenario given, put up a sign. If you don't, that's your decision, but expect someone to step on your boat if it's at risk etc. It's really not hard, have a think about it...

Quite frankly, I think you're being a goose.

[Jammer Six]

You probably want to avoid the U.S.

[blinkerfluid]

I've already established that the law against trespassing doesn't apply to vessels. Maybe actually fully read and comprehend my previous post?

Also, it's blatantly obvious that you've never taken a statistics course/class and/or have ever conducted any study. If you had, you'd know that studies are conducted based on a sampling of the entire population (FYI, members posting on cruisersforum would be a sample of the entire cruising population). Those numbers are then extrapolated to represent the whole. You're absolutely correct in that there are at least 4 who share your viewpoint, and I'm sure if the whole world were to vote there would be many more. However, based on the results of this thread, there would be many many many more who would agree that rendering assistance is the correct course of action.

I've never seen anyone argue so vehemently against random acts of kindness.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to enlighten all of us on what is Truly Important that we're neglecting to consider.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

You probably want to avoid the U.S.

Just you mate. But you're kinda making that hard....

[tp12]

Originally Posted by blinkerfluid

I've already established that the law against trespassing doesn't apply to vessels. Maybe actually fully read and comprehend my previous post?

Also, it's blatantly obvious that you've never taken a statistics course/class and/or have ever conducted any study. If you had, you'd know that studies are conducted based on a sampling of the entire population (FYI, members posting on cruisersforum would be a sample of the entire cruising population). Those numbers are then extrapolated to represent the whole. You're absolutely correct in that there are at least 4 who share your viewpoint, and I'm sure if the whole world were to vote there would be many more. However, based on the results of this thread, there would be many many many more who would agree that rendering assistance is the correct course of action.

Amen. I'm starting to think I've been feeding a troll

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by blinkerfluid

I've already established that the law against trespassing doesn't apply to vessels.

Actually, you established that trespass in the first degree doesn't apply to vessels, and you did so without either citation to the RCW or case law.

I'll take fourth degree. Or misdemeanor. Or littering. Wouldn't want you to do time for a crime you didn't commit.

That would be wrong.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Actually, you established that trespass in the first degree doesn't apply to vessels.

I'll take fourth degree. Or misdemeanor. Or littering. Wouldn't want you to do time for a crime you didn't commit.

That would be wrong.

Please explain how 4th degree, misdemeanour or littering would apply?

This will be funny

[blinkerfluid]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Actually, you established that trespass in the first degree doesn't apply to vessels, and you did so without either citation to the RCW or case law.

I'll take fourth degree. Or misdemeanor. Or littering. Wouldn't want you to do time for a crime you didn't commit.

That would be wrong.

Do yourself a favor and go read the laws, your ignorance of the situation isn't helping your cause. To make things easier for you, there are only 2 degrees of trespassing (that would be 1st and 2nd by the way), and they're both misdemeanors.

Since you're insinuating that I'm not being truthful in regards to the laws, read them (and understand them) yourself:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.52