Murder at Sea

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

What is the point here? I had not seen it. Clearly it would appear the OP and SaltyMonkey and others had not seen it. The case is not solved. It is relevant to the concerns of many here. Just because a certain (likely small) proportion of people managed to catch it "making the rounds" on some video nasty site means no one else may now (after a WHOLE two years or so!) discuss this shocking and as yet still open case of extraordinary brutality at sea?

I hadn't realised the criteria for silence had become so lean these days.

Muckle..pretty aggressive, how's the coffee. I always preferred a gradual escalation in hostilities. My point was, in case you missed it, was why wasn't it news then?

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Muckle..pretty aggressive, how's the coffee. I always preferred a gradual escalation in hostilities. My point was, in case you missed it, was why wasn't it news then?

Oh. I see…. apologies then. And sorry.

It's just that your original "why is this news" line rather appeared to me as if you were saying "old news" and, well, "why is this news?"

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Timely reporting! Speculations in the article are the same as they were back then.

Well, this does rather contradict what you just suggested you meant, no?

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Well, this does rather contradict what you just suggested you meant, no?

Muckle, in all sincerity did I get an apology or not?? Or is it a conditional apology?

In the original post "...why is this news?" is ambiguous because of conveying nuances in the written word.

So as explained in my second post and now spelling it out should have been "...why is this national news now?" It should have been national news 1 or 2 years ago when it first made the rounds.

Digging into it, at the time there were some blog speculations that match the NYTimes article reporting.

See no contradictions, yes?

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Muckle, in all sincerity did I get an apology or not?? Or is it a conditional apology?

In the original post "...why is this news?" is ambiguous because of conveying nuances in the written word.

So as explained in my second post and now spelling it out should have been "...why is this national news now?" It should have been national news 1 or 2 years ago when it first made the rounds.

Digging into it, at the time there were some blog speculations that match the NYTimes article reporting.

See no contradictions, yes?

Ok I understand now, though was certainly not very clear, I think you may admit, but happy to apologise for upsetting. I should perhaps have asked for more clarity.

[hpeer]

So just today, about noon, I was crossing the street (Broadway, financial district, lower Manhattan, jay walking) and I notice a commercial mini- van backing up. There is a family behind the van, small kids, short, can't be seen by driver. Mom is trying to grab kids out of the way. I motion to the driver to stop, she looks at me, checks mirror and continues to back. I motion more violently. She backs. Etc.

As I walk past her I say "there were kids behind you." I assumed she must not have seen them and was wondering why I was making weird hand gestures.

She says "Were they in the cross walk?"
"No, there were kids behind you." ( I think she miss hears me.)
"Were they in the cross walk?" (Now snidely.)
Etc. predictable escalation.
Me..."that doesn't give you the right to run over them." (Starting to scream at this itch..must walk away.)

Least there be any racial indendos, Black woman driver, black family, white me.

Just confirms my opinion of humanity.

[DeepFrz]

Sadly, life is very cheap in some parts of our planet. Thankfully, most of the planet knows it precious.
Our news only shows us the scary stuff. Cos it sells more news!

No, the scary stuff needs to be told and people need to read it. Or people can continue to sleep walk through Shangri-La.

[senormechanico]

Are the PC crowd in CF readers going to get all snooty at guys like me who think it's a good idea to be able to carry in lawless areas of the world to protect myself and crew from scum like this who think life is cheap?

Hello? Any intelligent life out there in CF land?
Flame away.
I'd rather have a fighting chance against animals like this.

Are you going to ban me again for having an intelligent response to a problem?

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Are the PC crowd in CF readers going to get all snooty at guys like me who think it's a good idea to be able to carry in lawless areas of the world to protect myself and crew from scum like this who think life is cheap?

Hello? Any intelligent life out there in CF land?
Flame away.
I'd rather have a fighting chance against animals like this.

Are you going to ban me again for having an intelligent response to a problem?

Carry what? Against whom? What are you going to carry against 5 or 12 guys with automatic weapons? What reaction would they give you if you presented your "carry"?

[senormechanico]

It's pretty obvious those guys never had a chance, but not every scenario plays out like that one.

You can't just call 911 at sea, so it just makes sense to be prepared to defend yourself if needed, that's all.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

It's pretty obvious those guys never had a chance, but not every scenario plays out like that one.

You can't just call 911 at sea, so it just makes sense to be prepared to defend yourself if needed, that's all.

Sure thing, the trick however is knowing when to use a firearm if you have one. The problem is that pulling one out instantly makes a possibly merely unpleasant situation deadly. It ups the ante of force to murderous immediately. What do you think Sir Peter Blake would say, if he now could say anything at all?

[Bill Seal]

If Capt. Slocum hadn't had his trusty Henry rifle, he wouldn't have made it past Cape Horn.
Just sayin'.

[micah719]

"What do you think Sir Peter Blake would say, if he now could say anything at all? "


How about:
Keep a better watch in known danger areas and use the rifle to keep the swine off the boat in the first place. Oh, and avoid jams, they're bad news.

The video is hideous. I wonder if a realistic wooden model (or an inflatable?) of an old Browning m1919 on the rail would serve to instil a little caution in case one chances to meet such scum on the sea? Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[dannc]

When this video was first published a year or so ago, it was thought the Chinese were killing Fijian fisherman. What was reported after the Fiji government investigated, was that the incident was off of Africa and the men in the water were pirates who had tried to board one or more of the Chinese fishing vessels.

Later,
Dan

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by micah719

"What do you think Sir Peter Blake would say, if he now could say anything at all? "


How about:
Keep a better watch in known danger areas and use the rifle to keep the swine off the boat in the first place. Oh, and avoid jams, they're bad news.

The video is hideous. I wonder if a realistic wooden model (or an inflatable?) of an old Browning m1919 on the rail would serve to instil a little caution in case one chances to meet such scum on the sea? Si vis pacem, para bellum.

He was immediately shot to death and then the multiple boarders robbed and left the boat, leaving multiple witnesses to the murder on the boat ALIVE. Had he not used the gun he would be ALIVE> you are completely incorrect in this case, and that is beyond argument.