Helpless To Stop Thieves Removing Property From Stranded Yacht

[Rustic Charm]

This has come up before about rules about property.

The reality is that sooner or later the vessel has to be declare an abondoned vessel and therefore fair game. Far from this situation though where the owner is trying to salvage the vessel.

Owner "helpless" to stop thieves stealing from his stranded yacht - MySailing.com.au

[pesarsten]

Sounds like it's time for Mr Smith and Mrs Wesson to move to the area. A couple of dead looters will go a long way to pointing out the error of their ways!

Of course proper signage in multiple languages to notify the dregs of the beach that stealing is wrong and may get you killed is needed first.

Start gun rant now........

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by pesarsten

Sounds like it's time for Mr Smith and Mrs Wesson to move to the area. A couple of dead looters will go a long way to pointing out the error of their ways!

Of course proper signage in multiple languages to notify the dregs of the beach that stealing is wrong and may get you killed is needed first.

Start gun rant now........

this on is New Zealand, which is the same as Australia, you can't go shooting thieves in either place.

[Hearts Content]

That is correct as unfortunately, only the criminals are armed. I'm not sure if you would even be able to use harsh language as that may be considered hate speech.

Sucks to be a slave

[NZGrant]

Unfortunately a lot of ferals live up north.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[South Pacific]

They couldn't have chosen a worse place to run aground as it is right beside a low cost housing area that the local police know well. I had a look a couple of days after they beached her and was surprised to see that she wasn't locked, and at that stage the solar panel was still there, as were winches, sails, all lines, and the anchor and chain were still attached. It looked to me to be a very easy and cheap salvage, but she has been left there through 2 days of 40knot onshore winds with accompanying seas, so I doubt there is much left now.
I feel sad for the owners to loose their sailing home like that.

[valhalla360]

While I doubt the people involved followed proper salvage procedures, at what point does it become open to salvage. After 11 days if the guy isn't there and there aren't any signs or other evidence of ownership, a legitimate claim could be made that it appeared to be abandoned and open to salvage.

Most likely it's a practical issue proving who took what and what was the value of what they took and is it worth the cost to sue them for it.

While I feel sorry for the guy and it sounds like the weather was working against him, it sounds like he should have been paying someone to protect it while he was gone. Hopefully, his insurance covers everything as I'm sure even without pilfering, that long pounding in the surf will do a lot of damage.

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

this on is New Zealand, which is the same as Australia, you can't go shooting thieves in either place.

Both are Common Law Countries.

“The rights or ...liberties of Englishmen ...consist primarly in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty and of private property... To vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament, for redress of grievances, and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defence.

“And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints... so gentle and moderate... that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.”
William Blackstone (1723-1780) Commentaries on The Laws of England

Under the Rule of Law (and the words do mean what they say), all Legislation (what our representatives create, in a 'Legislative Body' - they are Legislators not Law makers, and are expressly forbidden to be Law makers - because making Law is the exercising of power, and they are denied power, because nobody can be trusted with power) must comply with the Law to be 'lawful', otherwise the legislation is illegal, and void. The highest authority in whether legislation is lawful or unlawful, is a Jury of our Peers, which is why tyrants always try and do away with Jury Trials, along with subverting the Judiciary to their will.

“All liberty is conditional, limited and therefore unequal. The state can never do what it likes in its own sphere. It is bound by all kinds of law.” Lord Acton

Which is why Thomas Jefferson was correctly able to say:

"In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

This is what the American War of Independence was really fought over, and fought to restore. It wasn't anything to do with King George, believe it or not (confirmed by President John Quincy Adams), but he sure was a handy scapegoat for the real tyrants.

It was about the criminal and illegal changes made to the Constitution and Common Law, by a bunch of tyrants that infiltrated and took over our Democracy House (the House of Commons). It was an extremely badly implemented Act of Union 1707, that allowed this to happen.

William Pitt the Elder railing about it in Parliament at the time:

"Instead of the arbitrary power of a King, must we submit to the arbitrary power of the House of Commons? If this be true, what benefit do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny my Lords is detestable in every shape, but none so formidable as where it is assumed and exercised by a number of tyrants.

But my Lords this is not the fact, this is not the Constitution, we have a Law of Parliament. We have a Statute Book and the Bill of Rights."

We aren't supposed to have 'Government', we are supposed to be 'governed' by the Law (the Rule of Law is indeed literal).

If any moron considers any of the above to be 'political' in any way, kindly ignore them, because they obviously don't know which way is up.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ribbit

Both are Common Law Countries.

“The rights or ...liberties of Englishmen ...consist primarly in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty and of private property... To vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament, for redress of grievances, and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defence.

“And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints... so gentle and moderate... that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.”
William Blackstone (1723-1780) Commentaries on The Laws of England

Under the Rule of Law (and the words do mean what they say), all Legislation (what our representatives create, in a 'Legislative Body' - they are Legislators not Law makers, and are expressly forbidden to be Law makers - because making Law is the exercising of power, and they are denied power, because nobody can be trusted with power) must comply with the Law to be 'lawful', otherwise the legislation is illegal, and void. The highest authority in whether legislation is lawful or unlawful, is a Jury of our Peers, which is why tyrants always try and do away with Jury Trials, along with subverting the Judiciary to their will.

“All liberty is conditional, limited and therefore unequal. The state can never do what it likes in its own sphere. It is bound by all kinds of law.” Lord Acton

Which is why Thomas Jefferson was correctly able to say:

"In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

This is what the American War of Independence was really fought over, and fought to restore. It wasn't anything to do with King George, believe it or not (confirmed by President John Quincy Adams), but he sure was a handy scapegoat for the real tyrants.

It was about the criminal and illegal changes made to the Constitution and Common Law, by a bunch of tyrants that infiltrated and took over our Democracy House (the House of Commons). It was an extremely badly implemented Act of Union 1707, that allowed this to happen.

William Pitt the Elder railing about it in Parliament at the time:

"Instead of the arbitrary power of a King, must we submit to the arbitrary power of the House of Commons? If this be true, what benefit do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny my Lords is detestable in every shape, but none so formidable as where it is assumed and exercised by a number of tyrants.

But my Lords this is not the fact, this is not the Constitution, we have a Law of Parliament. We have a Statute Book and the Bill of Rights."

We aren't supposed to have 'Government', we are supposed to be 'governed' by the Law (the Rule of Law is indeed literal).

If any moron considers any of the above to be 'political' in any way, kindly ignore them, because they obviously don't know which way is up.

what strain of whoopy weed are you enjoying tonight?

Which means, what on earth has all that got to do with this thread?

[a64pilot]

I cut N pasted this right from the article, and it is what I had been led to believe to be true as well, theft is theft, I don't think a stranded vessel ever really becomes "free game" does it?

Under international law a stranded vessel was not fair game, but belonged to the owner or insurer and removing items was theft.

[MarkJ]

Really?

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I cut N pasted this right from the article, and it is what I had been led to believe to be true as well, theft is theft, I don't think a stranded vessel ever really becomes "free game" does it?

Under international law a stranded vessel was not fair game, but belonged to the owner or insurer and removing items was theft.

I believe your are correct.

But, let's also be practical. There has to become a time, a state of deriliction perhaps when most of us, including the authorities without a complaint, would consider the circumstances that it would be acceptable to 'scavenge' ? I'm asking hypothetically now, not about this NZ yacht.

[MarkJ]

Its the same as shop looting. Suddenly reasonable people think its ok to steal.

[a64pilot]

I agree with Mark, never, ever take what isn't yours.
Simplistic way to look at things of course but I've never seen anyone get into trouble doing that.
remember a while back when someone posted that they had scavenged a wreck? Seems there are many who think like I do, most didn't like it.

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

what strain of whoopy weed are you enjoying tonight?

Which means, what on earth has all that got to do with this thread?

Only everything.

How do you think such a culture of lawlessness and criminality, comes about?

If we don't understand the basic and essential fundamentals (incredibly, not even taught at most Law Schools today, which generally don't even have essential reference works on the premises - and yes I attended one that was that lacking, it was so poor I walked out), how do you think we manage to fix things, rather than keep on making things worse?

This is damned serious stuff! We are getting people wrongly sentenced to long terms in prison, because NOBODY in the Court understands the Law and its principles, so they can't grasp why or how that person is INNOCENT, and the Jury can only respond to what is presented to them!

"whoopy weed"?

Please try harder.

PS. Beginning to see why this was in Magna Carta:

"We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well"

We are making the exact same mistakes, all over again.