This Opens Up a Can of Worms

[Chotu]

What are some opinions on this story.

Criminal charges for sailing in bad weather.

https://nypost.com/2019/05/07/brazil...rowning-death/

[Sailor 99]

Originally Posted by Chotu

What are some opinions on this story.

Criminal charges for sailing in bad weather.

https://nypost.com/2019/05/07/brazil...rowning-death/

Actually what comes immediately to mind is that you can't fix stupid. First off sailing a 16 ft cat with no PFD is idiotic. Second who goes out in that kind of weather voluntarily.


My next question is "does she get a darwin award?"

[denverd0n]

If she understood the risks, then she accepted those risks just like he did, and he should not be held responsible. If, on the other hand, she had no idea, and he assured her that it was safe and that he knew what he was doing, then he SHOULD be held responsible. In the latter case, in effect, he committed fraud by using false information to convince her to take action.



On the other hand, one might argue that any reasonable person should know that a PFD is a necessity on a small boat, and therefore she was acting recklessly by going out without one.


So I can see it going either way. The arguments in court would be interesting. My two cents worth, anyway.

[hpeer]

DenverdOn,

Good analysis. Not everything is clear cut.

[Chotu]

What I see as a little sketchy here is that someone just taking a boat out for a fun can be held criminally responsible in the event of an accident. A true accident. I don’t think anyone knows what happened exactly, but this guy may have went out in some bad weather on a small boat in the bay. And somehow she drowned. I’m not sure that someone should be held criminally responsible for an accident of that nature. Certainly a professional captain should. And certainly anyone who had malice or bad intent should, and even maybe somebody really stupid should. .But an accident might just be an accident sometimes. And to face felony charges for an accident involving your own wife seems pretty out there. I’m sure he was not trying to kill his supermodel wife. LOL

[sailorboy1]

don't sail with a model local celebrity

[a64pilot]

There is more to this than is in the news, has to be.

[Pete17C]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

If she understood the risks, then she accepted those risks just like he did, and he should not be held responsible. If, on the other hand, she had no idea, and he assured her that it was safe and that he knew what he was doing, then he SHOULD be held responsible. In the latter case, in effect, he committed fraud by using false information to convince her to take action.



On the other hand, one might argue that any reasonable person should know that a PFD is a necessity on a small boat, and therefore she was acting recklessly by going out without one.


So I can see it going either way. The arguments in court would be interesting. My two cents worth, anyway.

The article says there were a couple of dogs on board as well. Did they choose to go sailing without a PFD or were they convinced it would be a good day to go sailing on a 16' cat by the skipper?

I don't think they knew the forecast.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

There is more to this than is in the news, has to be.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Pete17C

The article says there were a couple of dogs on board as well. Did they choose to go sailing without a PFD...

He's not being criminally charged with killing the dogs. Stupid to take them out, but not really the subject of this thread.

[Woodland Hills]

Originally Posted by Chotu

I’m sure he was not trying to kill his supermodel wife. LOL

Why would you think that? Because she’s pretty? Just remember that for every beautiful woman you see, somewhere there is a guy who is sick of her ****!

[sagablu]

Originally Posted by Woodland Hills

Why would you think that? Because she’s pretty? Just remember that for every beautiful woman you see, somewhere there is a guy who is sick of her ****!

However, proper external appearance delays the onset of the "the sick of her ****" stage

[Montanan]

Manslaughter

noun

the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn't involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life. The absence of malice aforethought means that manslaughter involves less moral blame than either first or second degree murder.

The two main variations of manslaughter are usually referred to as voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter often refers to unintentional homicide from criminally negligent or reckless conduct. It can also refer to an unintentional killing through commission of a crime other than a felony.

The subtleties between murder and manslaughter reach their peak with involuntary manslaughter, particularly because an accidental killing through extreme recklessness can constitute second degree murder.

Voluntary Manslaughter
This is often called a "heat of passion" crime. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person:

is strongly provoked (under circumstances that could similarly provoke a reasonable person) and
kills in the heat of passion aroused by that provocation.

For “heat of passion” to exist, the person must not have had sufficient time to “cool off” from the provocation. That the killing isn’t considered first or second degree murder is a concession to human weakness. Killers who act in the heat of passion may kill intentionally, but the emotional context is a mitigating factor that reduces their moral blameworthiness.

The classic example of voluntary manslaughter involves a husband who comes home unexpectedly to find his wife committing adultery. If the sight of the affair provokes the husband into such a heat of passion that he kills the paramour right then and there, a judge or jury might very well consider the killing to be voluntary manslaughter.

State of Mind

Legislatures and courts have developed an entire body of law relating to the mental state differences between unintentional second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. The determination basically boils down to how morally blameworthy the fact finder considers the defendant.

[masonc]

I suspect reckless endangerment would be the closest US crime.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by masonc

I suspect reckless endangerment would be the closest US crime.

Of issue in this instance is that a person was killed, not just endangered of being harmed, hence the homicide classification, specifically involuntary manslaughter.

Involuntary Manslaughter: Homicide that is committed without the intent to kill, but with criminal recklessness or negligence; or a death that results during the commission of or flight from a misdemeanor or felony that is not encompassed by the felony-murder rule.

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. The charge may occur in various contexts, such as, among others, domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse.

In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action.

[senormechanico]

It reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn0WdJx-Wkw