Seaman's Manslaughter - Fascinating Indeed

[PotomacDaysailer]

Witnessing an active aggressive psychotic episode can be trauma inducing to those witnesses, especially if they were the targets of the person's rage.

In other words, they were scared spitless...

Sounds like maybe the reason for the prosecution is the info that apparently came out later (after the initial report by the CG?) about tossing the life ring the next day with a remark about "at least I can say I threw the life ring" and a gun and pot being tossed overboard - those actions look guilty; as pointed out before, better to just stick to the full truth, warts and all. Could that be why they've impounded the Cimarron and deemed Smith a flight risk?

Seems like the prosecution would have a difficult time proving negligence with the only witnesses being in agreement that the guy jumped overboard intentionally.

 

[dlochner]

In other words, they were scared spitless...

Hopefully they had enough clean underwear.

 

[Jackdaw]

OK the guy was going phycho and probably everyone was secretly relieved he was off the boat. And maybe they thought they saw him go under. But not searching until any reasonable expectation of survival in the water had passed is asking for trouble. Wanna cut this to the quick? Ask the captain how long he would have search the area if it was HIS son.

 

[dlochner]

OK the guy was going phycho and probably everyone was secretly relieved he was off the boat. And maybe they thought they saw him go under. But not searching until any reasonable expectation of survival in the water had passed is asking for trouble. Wanna cut this to the quick? Ask the captain how long he would have search the area if it was HIS son.

How the captain and crew behaved is not excusable, but understandable. Few of us have ever or will ever be faced with a similar situation and while we might like to believe that under similar circumstances we would take the correct action, we will (hopefully) never know.

The whole story has yet to be told. I suspect it is a much more complicated situation and the surviving crew probably wish they had never been on that trip.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

Few of us have ever or will ever be faced with a similar situation and while we might like to believe that under similar circumstances we would take the correct action, we will (hopefully) never know.

The whole story has yet to be told. I suspect it is a much more complicated situation and the surviving crew probably wish they had never been on that trip.

That's for sure … I know that I have never been in a circumstance such as described. I can only hope that I would react appropriately, but one never knows for sure until the time comes. I suspect that there were a lot of bad feelings leading towards that episode so I don't lack sympathy for captain and crew, either. I'm sure they didn't invite this trouble, and I'd guess that they weren't prepared for it either. The kind of stress that goes with a life or death situation can't be easy.

 

[williamtl]

(Also note that since he's not being charged with murder, they don't need to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)

The burden of proof does not change with the crime. If the state is bringing criminal charges and an accused person’s liberty is at stake, it’s beyond reasonable doubt (probably some exceptions, but I don’t think so here). I know there are some strange twists in maritime law, but I don’t think this is one of them. If it is, please post a code reference or case or something so I can learn.

If the estate of the deceased files a civil suit for wrongful death, sometimes called manslaughter, then the burden changes dramatically to preponderance of the evidence.

Murder, manslaughter, what’s the difference?
Generally the difference between murder and manslaughter is the state of mind of the alleged killer. Note again, different in every state and the labels often conflict. In Title 18 the definitions are “unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought” for murder (section 1111), unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds: voluntary and involuntary“ for manslaughter (section 1112).

The crime section stated in the article is 1115. The title ought to get you attention: “Misconduct or neglect of ship officers.” Which is defined as follows:
“Every captain, engineer, pilot, or other person employed on any steamboat or vessel, by whose misconduct, negligence, or inattention to his duties on such vessel the life of any person is destroyed, and every owner, charterer, inspector, or other public officer, through whose fraud, neglect, connivance, misconduct, or violation of law the life of any personis destroyed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

The article calls this seaman’s manslaughter.

“employed” probably does not mean what you think and in this case the captain probably will meet the definition of employed.

Read the definitions on your own: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-51.

Regrets on being pedantic, but ...

Disclaimers in my previous post are incorporated by reference.

 

[jssailem]

The report of going in the water and sinking is not abnormal. One of the reasons to wear a PFD is to deal with the shock of going in the water. Dave stated it correctly. There is a gasp - heart shock that occurs upon going overboard. The individual goes in the water opens mouth, fills lungs, heart shocked, drowning occurs.
Why going in the water even moderately warm water always close your mouth and hold your breath till you surface. Then take a breath.

Based on the description of the events it is very possible the guy did not immediately surface. Given time and temp he might surface due to decomp or he might sink to the point he never decamps and is gone to the briny deep.

 

[JetLaggedChef]

This body is 5’7” and 195 lbs, solid muscle with much lower than avg body fat especially in regards to muscle (though not what it used to be). When I jump in the ocean, I surface within a few seconds. I do it every other week when scuba diving in West Palm Beach while waiting for other divers. Trying to add clauses like “well if I purposely exhale ALL MY AIR...” are a little bit of a stretch to relevance in this case. Maybe the sinkers have lower body fat and more muscle, but I’m gonna call bologna on sinking claims and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Based on the description of the events it is very possible the guy did not immediately surface.

Regardless, the boat was moving and they didn’t turn around, I don’t think the crew can actually say whether he came right back up or not since they continued on. Even at 3 knots, by the time they got to the side of the boat he would’ve been behind them. That’s why we have MOB maneuvers. Also, there are so many parts of their story that don’t line up. It rings like 70% true, but that missing 30% is everything.

I think some are not fully considering human nature in how one would respond to several days of stress with a person acting out in a confined space.

@williamtl : the difference is *intent*, and to clarify, murder is the *only* crime that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (I don’t know if that’s different for maritime law.) That’s why it’s much harder to convince someone for murder than literally any other crime. Sometimes people are charged with manslaughter because they can’t prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Davidasailor26]

to clarify, murder is the *only* crime that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (I don’t know if that’s different for maritime law.) That’s why it’s much harder to convince someone for murder than literally any other crime. Sometimes people are charged with manslaughter because they can’t prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation required.
I am not a lawyer, but everything I've ever heard or can find searching now says that reasonable doubt is the standard for all criminal cases.

 

[JamesG161]

The Captain should use "reasonable doubt" and "Jonah" defense!

It is reasonable the "lost soul" was the boat's "Jonah curse".
Once the "Jonah" left the boat, the crew was less one member and still made it safely to destination port.
The crew seemed ok with the Captain's decision, thus no mutiny.
Just show the jury the movie..
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"
Jim...

PS: The real error was no PFD required on the weather deck and perhaps a tether when "walking" on deck at night. The lost MOB was the result of that error. Search and Rescue is the aftermath.

 

[Jackdaw]

the difference is *intent*, and to clarify, murder is the *only* crime that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (I don’t know if that’s different for maritime law.) That’s why it’s much harder to convince someone for murder than literally any other crime. Sometimes people are charged with manslaughter because they can’t prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.

The charged him with manslaughter because there is no evidence at all that suggests the captain intended for a death to result from his actions. That's the legal definition of manslaughter. As you note, murder is all about intent, but the standard for judgement is the same for both crimes.

 

[jssailem]

@JetLaggedChef
Not everyone is the specimen of perfect health. I was not taking a position on this event. I was pointing out medical facts regarding individuals falling into water when the water temps are lower than body temp. It is called the gasp reflex.
It has been identified in cold water immersion events as the cause of near immediate drowning. https://bestmedicinenews.org/childrens-health/cold-water-drowning-need-know/

The reason I added the observation about use of a PFD or in the MOB case lack of a PFD.

Even in perfect health the gasp reflex can incapacitate a person.

 

[Jackdaw]

This body is 5’7” and 195 lbs, solid muscle with much lower than avg body fat especially in regards to muscle (though not what it used to be). When I jump in the ocean, I surface within a few seconds. I do it every other week when scuba diving in West Palm Beach while waiting for other divers. Trying to add clauses like “well if I purposely exhale ALL MY AIR...” are a little bit of a stretch to relevance in this case. Maybe the sinkers have lower body fat and more muscle, but I’m gonna call bologna on sinking claims and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Go MOB in foulies and boots, and if you cannot actively keep yourself on the surface you WILL SINK. This is has been documented many times, most recently during the last Chi-Mac race where an experienced crew went MOB and the crew watched him bob, go under, and never come back up. Divers found him later with the help of SONAR. They stress this in every USsailing Safety at Sea class I've ever taken.

As other note the buoyancy of a human body is very close to neutral. It takes very little to turn that negative.

 

[JetLaggedChef]

Re: reasonable doubt, that’s kind of common knowledge in the legal community. My ex husband is a criminal attorney, so if something has changed in the past two years I hope he’s aware.

@jssailem : I understand, thank you for clarifying. Does one have to be conscious for the gasp to happen? And, how much water does one actually take in with one gasp? (Remember, were talking about sinking, not drowning.) I ask because two years ago in Cozumel I was knocked unconscious (and off the boat) by a scuba tank. I was in swim shorts, no shirt, shoes or dive gear. Unconscious, I did not gasp to inhale water and I floated. I’ve also never gasped to inhale water when I jumped in consciously either. That said though, the water where he was is much colder than I would ever jump into

Either way though, we’re talking about an *immediate* sinking (not drowning), apparently so quick that the crew supposedly scrambled to the side of the boat and observed him sinking as they sailed away.

Their entire story about why they didn’t turn around is they claim they saw him sink immediately and so there was no point in trying to turn around to retrieve him. It’s just not believable to me.

I think it’s much more plausible (regardless of whether he jumped or was thrown) that they simply didn’t want to deal with him anymore and just said, “fk it.”

Years of being married to a criminal attorney has taught me to sniff out bullshit in a story. (See Chris Watts.)

 

[PotomacDaysailer]

I'm no lawyer (but I did stay at... never mind) but I've always heard and believed that any criminal conviction, as opposed to civil judgment, requires the "reasonable doubt" standard. In this case it would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the captain's misconduct, negligence, or inattention to duty caused the man's death. IMHO it will be extremely difficult to convince a jury that his death was caused by any of the above, given the man's mental state. Besides the crew's testimony there is the evidence of possible past mental health issues, and the medications found, to attest to his mental state. I think the prosecution would have to prove that the lack of rescue effort caused his death, or at the very least was more than 50% of the cause of death, and I don't see how that could be established even by the lower preponderance of the evidence standard.
Still I don't think it's a case of malicious prosecution, since there are many questions unanswered. And I think that the captain could easily be held liable for a civil judgment for failing to take measures to rescue the man.

 

[Scott T-Bird]

JLC, you have to be relating your experience with air tank & wetsuit on. Sure, then you do have positive buoyancy and need weights to stay down. I’ve never seen a snorkeler in a swimsuit using weights. The science tells us that our body is very close to neutral in water. Experience tells us that too. Dive off your boat to a depth of about 10’ in your swimsuit and remain motionless. Then get to the surface and tell us that you didn’t have to swim for it before you needed air!

John, I’m buying the gasp reflex, but not in warm water.

I’m no lawyer, but wouldn’t manslaughter be a stretch if the guy jumped in on his own? I’d say possible manslaughter if the captain shoved him and he fell overboard. I’m not understanding why it could be manslaughter for not turning back. Then it would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he would have been saved by turning back (and not just maybe). I’m skeptical that could be proven.

Even if I think that he had a moral obligation to turn back and search, I don’t know the obligation under maritime law. Perhaps there isn’t an obligation under the law?

 

[JetLaggedChef]

1. Murder is the only conviction that requires “beyond a reasonable doubt”. 100% fact. This is why it’s heder to convict someone of murder than anything else, all the defense has to do is plant doubt or a plausible alternate theory. This is related to the potential of the death penalty.

2. Perhaps you guys overlooked this detail, if he jumped in the water but was alive (or floating, which means he could be alive) and the crew did not try to pick him up, it would absolutely be manslaughter. Ergo, the crew would claim he sunk immediately whether he did or not.

3. @Scott T-Bird : Snorklers, with no weights, stay floating on the surface unless they swim down.

 

[Jackdaw]

I’m no lawyer, but wouldn’t manslaughter be a stretch if the guy jumped in on his own? I’d say possible manslaughter if the captain shoved him and he fell overboard. I’m not understanding why it could be manslaughter for not turning back. Then it would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he would have been saved by turning back (and not just maybe). I’m skeptical that could be proven.

Even if I think that he had a moral obligation to turn back and search, I don’t know the obligation under maritime law. Perhaps there isn’t an obligation under the law?

I think this would be true for a pure good Samaritan, but the standard might prove different for the skipper of a boat the person was on. There the reasonable expectation might prove to be that he had an obligation to at least try and find the person, knowing that not doing so would cause death.

 

[Jackdaw]

1. Murder is the only conviction that requires “beyond a reasonable doubt”. 100% fact. This is why it’s heder to convict someone of murder than anything else, all the defense has to do is plant doubt or a plausible alternate theory. This is related to the potential of the death penalty.

That's the 2nd time you have made this unsupported claim. Please produce bona-fide citations for this. It goes against my laypersons understanding of US criminal law.

 

[Kings Gambit]

Whence came the old adage, “It’s either sink or swim?” The common experience for most people is that if you cannot or do not swim when pitched into the water, you’ll sink at least deep enough to possibly drown.

From reading the article (statute), negligence is what would have to be proven. We know he’s dead. So was the skipper negligent to the point where it resulted in the death of a member of his crew? From reading the tale and this thread, seems that there’s a lot of material there for a jury to find culpable negligence beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. But in my “lay” opinion it comes down to what the skipper did or didn’t do after the guy jumped in. If he did not attempt to recover him, why not? If he believed that doing so might put him, his vessel, and the rest of his crew at risk of harm, would he have been negligent?

If you’re going invoke Master and Commander, it’s more to the point where the skipper and crew cut away the rigging to save the ship while a MOB was desperately swimming toward it. What would that be called in today’s world?